UC-NRLF 


•  i:V.   ' 


^B    727    5bT 


THE  CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA 
STUDIES  IN  AMERICAN  CHURCH  HISTORY 

Vol.  II. 


THOMAS  CORNWALEYS 

COMMISSIONER  AND  COUNSELLOR 

OF  MARYLAND 


BY 


GEORGE  BONIFACE  STRATEMEIER 

OF  THE  ORDER  OF   PREACHERS 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  Philosophy  of  the  Catholic  Univer- 
sity OF  America  in  Partial  Fulfillment  of  the  require- 
ments FOR  the  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


-     ■! 


WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 
1922 


THOMAS  CORNWALEYS 


NIHIL  OBSTAT: 

Fr.  Augustinus  Waldron,  O.  P.,  S.  T.  M. 
Fr.  Dominicus  McShane,  O.  P.,  S.  T.  Lr. 

IMPRIMATUR: 

Fr.  Raymundus  Meagher,  O.  P.,  S.  T.  Lr.,  LL.  D. 
Prior  Provincialis. 


•     •  •   »•  • 

•  •      •      •   • 


•       •         •••••      ••«•      •• 

•  •     •         • 

.•  •      • 

•  •  •  •   • 


THE  CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA 
STUDIES  IN  AMERICAN  CHURCH  HISTORY 

Vol.  II. 


THOMAS  CORNWALEYS 

COMMISSIONER  AND  COUNSELLOR 

OF  MARYLAND 


BY 


GEORGE   BONITACE  STRATEMEIER 

OF   THE   ORDER   OF    PREACHERS 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  Philosophy  of  the  Catholic  Univer- 
sity OF  America  in  Partial  Fulfillment  of  the  require- 
ments FOR  THE  Degree  of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


WASHINGTON.  D.  C. 

1922 


•••_•• 


€? 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

Foreword ix 

I  Introduction 1 

II  The  Maryland  Charter 7 

III  Preparations  for  the  Voyage  to  Maryland 16 

IV  The  Settlement  of  Maryland 27 

V   CORNWALEYS  AND   KeNT  IsLAND ,  .  .       34 

VI   CoRNWALEYS  AS  LEGISLATOR 45 

VII   CORNWALEYS  AND  THE   JeSUITS 55 

VIII  Jerome  Hawley  and  Thomas  Cornwaleys 70 

IX  Cornwaleys  as  Legislator  (Continued) 81 

X  Indian  Disturbances 92 

XI  Cornwaleys  and  Ingle 106 

XII  Final  Services  to  the  Colony 119 

XIII  Conclusion 132 

XIV  Critical  Essay  on  Authorities 135 


48^02. 


X  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

Thomas  Cornwaleys  was  one  of  the  leading  figures  in  this 
enterprise.  As  that  event  draws  near,  it  is  hoped  that 
George,  Cecilius  and  Leonard  Calvert,  together  with  Corn- 
waleys and  Hawley  and  other  leading  men  of  early  Maryland, 
shall  live  again  on  the  pages  of  our  historical  publications. 

The  writer  wishes  to  acknowledge  his  great  indebtedness 
to  Doctor  Guilday,  under  whose  guidance  this  dissertation 
was  written.  To  Doctors  P.  W.  Browne,  Stock,  and 
Purcell,  he  owes  a  debt  of  gratitude  for  many  valuable  sug- 
gestions, but  even  greater  is  his  indebtedness  to  his  esteemed 
confrere,  the  Very  Rev.  V.  F.  O'Daniel  for  much  help  in 
bringing  this  work  to  completion.  A  word  of  appreciation 
is  also  due  to  Miss  McShane  of  the  library  of  the  Catholic 
University.  Finally  his  thanks  are  due  to  all  who  have  in 
any  way  given  him  assistance. 


•  •  •       • 

•  •     •     • 

.•  •    •  • 


CHAPTER  I 
Inteoduction 

From  the  day  that  Henry  VIII  broke  away  from  the 
CathoHc  Church  and  set  up  a  rehgion  to  suit  his  Uking,  the 
adherents  of  the  ancient  rehgion  had  to  reckon  with  perse- 
cution. Loss  of  property,  banishment  and  death  were  the 
lot  of  those  who  remained  loyal  to  the  faith  of  their  fathers. 
In  the  first  days  of  the  Church,  the  Christians  had  to  seek 
localities  unknown  to  mankind  at  large  where  they  might 
serve  God  unmolested.  In  fact  in  every  place  that  perse- 
cution raged  the  same  plan  had  to  be  adopted.  So  also  in 
England,  when  the  time  of  trial  came  for  every  true  believer, 
Cathohcs  had  to  worship  God  in  secret  as  the  Christians  of 
old. 

When  the  time  of  trial  lengthened  and  persecution  wore  on 
without  prospect  of  relief,  other  means  were  adopted.  Men 
of  property  saw  their  fortunes  dwindle  away  under  the  stern 
exactions  of  penal  laws.  When  the  fury  of  the  persecutors 
abated  somewhat,  legal  restrictions  were  still  placed  upon 
them.  Their  rights  of  citizenship  were  curtailed.  In  fact, 
many  hardships  continued  for  years  even  though  several 
rulers  arose  who  were  somewhat  more  lenient.  To  escape 
these  difficulties,  to  regain  their  lost  rights,  to  stand  on  an 
equal  footing  with  their  fellow-men  in  the  social  and  political 
order,  Cathohcs,  as  well  as  the  proscribed  of  other  rehgions, 
decided  upon  self-imposed  banishment,  first  to  the  continent 
of  Europe  and  then  to  a  home  beyond  the  seas. 

The  foundation  of  Maryland  was  an  outcome  of  this  move- 
ment. Its  founders,  Calvert  and  his  associates,  decided  to 
leave  their  homes  in  their  native  land  to  found  in  the  land  of 
America  an  asylum  for  the  persecuted  of  all  creeds.  Among 
the  first  colonists  of  this  ^^Land  of  Sanctuary,"  the  name  of 
Thomas  Cornwaleys  stands  out  prominently.  Resolving  to 
sacrifice  his  fortune  and  his  all  if  need  be,  he  decided  to  cast 
his  lot  with  the  colonial  venture  to  achieve  the  boon  of 
freely  worshipping  his  God.     A  lover  of  Uberty  and  an  enemy 

1 


•  ,••••       •      • 

•   -  •  •        •     •  ' 

,  •     •  •      •  • . 

•  •••••• 


2  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

of  proscription,  he  decided  to  traverse  the  ocean  to  secure 
that  which  at  home  he  was  unable  to  obtain. 

In  sending  out  his  colony  into  the  New  World,  CeciHus 
Calvert  appointed  as  trusted  adviser  to  Leonard  Calvert,  the 
governor,  a  man  who  was  to  render  his  name  illustrious  in 
the  early  annals  of  Maryland's  history.  It  was  most  fortu- 
nate for  him  to  obtain  the  services  of  Cornwaleys.  Self- 
confident,  cool  in  the  hour  of  danger,  firm,  frank  and  deter- 
mined, he  would  become,  without  conscious  effort  on  his  part, 
a  former  of  public  opinion  and  a  centre  to  which  all  eyes  might 
turn  in  cases  of  emergency  and  doubt. ^  In  all  the  activities, 
whether  legislative,  judicial  or  miUtary  with  which  his  name 
will  be  Hnked,  he  will  stand  out  as  fearless  and  undaunted  in 
expressing  his  views  and  as  a  brave  defender  of  the  rights  of 
proprietor  as  well  as  settler.  In  debates  of  the  Assembly 
he  will  be  found  a  leader  and  in  every  mihtary  expedition, 
he  will  be  found  the  ablest  commander. 

In  the  scattered  records  of  this  interesting  personage,  his 
name  assumes  a  variety  of  forms.  It  is  spelled  in  at  least 
four  different  ways:  Cornwaleys,  Cornwallis,  Cornewallis  and 
Cornwallys.  All  these  forms  are  to  be  found  in  the  Archives 
of  Maryland.^  Brown's  Genesis  of  the  United  States  notes  two 
variations,  Cornewallis  and  Cornwallis.^  We  have  adopted 
the  form  ^'Cornwaleys,"  because  it  is  so  written  by  himself.^ 

The  ancestry  of  the  sturdy  Maryland  colonist  cannot  be 
estabUshed  with  certainty.  We  will  give  the  genealogy 
generally  accepted  and  then  assign  our  reasons  for  throwing 
doubt  on  the  same.  Neill  derives  his  ancestry  from  the 
genealogical  tree  sketched  in  The  Private  Correspondence  of 
Jane  Lady  Cornwallis,  The  authors  of  The  Genesis  of  the 
United  States  and  The  Cyclopedia  of  American  Biography 
accept  these  sources.^  According  to  these,  Cornwaleys' 
lineage  is  traced  to  the  year  1519,  when  his  greatgrandfather, 

» Streeter,  Papers  relating  to  the  Early  History  of  Maryland,  p.  125. 
'  / — Archives  of  Maryland,  Index,  p.  552. 
3  Brown,  Genesis  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  ii,  p.  1085. 
*  Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  p.  181. 

'  Neill,  Founders  of  Maryland,  p.  69;  Brown,  op.  cit.,  p.  863;  Cyclopedia  of 
American  Biography. 


INTRODUCTION  3 

Sir  Thomas  Cornwaleys  was  born.*  This  nobleman  was  the 
husband  of  Anne,  daughter  of  Sir  John  Jerningham.  He  was 
knighted  on  December  1,  1548.  He  was  comptroller  of  the 
household  of  Queen  Mary  and  a  member  of  the  Privy 
Council.  Due  to  the  fact  that  he  was  a  CathoUc,  he  was 
removed  from  both  these  offices  on  the  accession  of  EUzabeth. 
He  died  on  December  24,  1604,  leaving  two  sons  and  three 
daughters.  AUce,  the  second  daughter,  married  Richard 
Southwell,  eldest  brother  of  Ven.  Robert  Southwell,  S.  J., 
who  was  martjo-ed  at  Tyburn,  February  21,  1595.^ 

Sir  Charles  Cornwaleys  was  the  second  son  of  Sir  Thomas. 
Nothing  is  known  of  his  early  life.  He  received  the  honor  of 
knighthood  on  July  11,  1603.  From  the  year  1605  until 
1610,  he  was  ambassador  to  Spain.  In  1610,  he  became 
treasurer  of  the  household  of  Henry,  Prince  of  Wales.  His 
death  occurred  on  December  21,  1629.  Sir  Charles  Corn- 
waleys was  married  thrice.  His  first  wife  was  Elizabeth, 
daughter  of  Thomas  Farnham  of  Fincham,  Norfolk.^ 

Sir  William  Cornwaleys,  the  father  of  the  Commissioner  of 
Maryland,  according  to  Neill,  was  a  son  of  Sir  Charles  Corn- 
waleys by  his  first  marriage.  On  August  26,  1595,  he  married 
Catherine,  daughter  of  Sir  Philip  Parker,  of  Erwarton, 
Suffolk.  The  date  of  his  death  is  not  certain,  some  writers 
placing  it  as  early  as  1614  and  others  as  late  as  1631.  Thomas 
Cornwaleys  was  his  second  son.^ 

The  writer's  reasons  for  doubting  the  identity  of  the  Mary- 
land Commissioner  and  the  Thomas  Cornwaleys  of  Neill  are 
derived  from  two  sources.  Streeter  says  that  the  only  basis 
for  supposing  that  Sir  Thomas  Cornwaleys  was  the  great- 
grandfather of  the  subject  of  our  biography  is  that  they  were 
of  the  same  name  and  creed.^^  We  do  not  regard  this  as 
conclusive  evidence.  Furthermore,  a  careful  scrutiny  of  the 
genealogy  of  the  Cornwaleys  family,  found  in  Lady  Corn- 


•  Dictionary  of  National  Biography,  Vol.  xii,  p.  234. 

'  Catholic  Record  Society,  Miscellanea,  Vol.  viii,  p.  94. 
»  D.  N.  B.,  loc.  cit. 

•  Brown,  op.  dt.,  p.  863. 
"  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  p.  124. 


4  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

wallis'  Correspondence  J  reveals  the  fact  that  there  is  only  one 
Thomas  Cornwaleys  that  could  have  been  the  Maryland 
Commissioner.  His  wife  is  Penelope,  daughter  of  John 
Wiseman  of  Middle  Temple  and  Tyrrels,  in  county  Essex. 
From  a  letter  written  by  Thomas  Cornwaleys  in  1638,  he 
speaks  of  his  wife.^^  At  that  time,  Penelope  Wiseman  was 
but  three  years  old.  Lady  CornwaUis  carefully  notes  when- 
ever any  of  the  persons  recorded  in  her  genealogy  were 
married  more  than  once.  In  the  case  of  Thomas  Corn- 
waleys there  is  no  such  fact  noted.  And  there  is  no  indication 
in  any  of  the  records  to  lead  us  to  suppose  that  Thomas 
Cornwaleys  was  married  more  than  once.  Consequently  we 
feel  inclined  to  adopt  the  conclusion  that  the  Thomas  Corn- 
waleys of  this  genealogy  is  not  the  colonist  of  this  biography. 

The  details  of  the  life  of  Cornwaleys  previous  to  coming  to 
Maryland  are  meagre.  Neill  claims  that  he  was  born  in 
1603.^^  The  same  author  asserts  that  in  his  youth  he  was  a 
merchant.  ^^  When  his  marriage  occurred  cannot  be  stated. 
There  are  only  two  references  to  his  wife  in  the  available 
records.  The  first,  as  noted  previously,  is  contained  in  a 
letter  dated  April  6,  1638,  to  Lord  Baltimore.  Therein  he 
refers  to  her  being  indisposed  so  that  she  could  not  very 
efficiently  manage  his  affairs  in  England.  ^^  The  other  will  be 
noted  when  we  speak  of  Cornwaleys'  final  departure  from  the 
colony.  This  is  all  the  information  recorded  in  the  career  of 
Cornwaleys  previous  to  his  becoming  a  Commissioner  of  the 
Maryland  Province. 

Thomas  Cornwaleys,  in  a  document  dated  November  15, 
1633,  containing  Lord  Baltimore's  Instructions  to  the  col- 
onists, is  designated  under  the  title  of  Commissioner.^^  On 
the  first  organization  of  the  government,  Jerome  Hawley  and 
Thomas  Cornwaleys  assumed  the  offices  of  Commissioner  to 
advise  and  assist  the  Governor.    They  occupy  the  most  im- 

11  Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  p.  170. 

12  Neill,  op.  cit.,  p.  70.  Throughout  this  dissertation,  the  old  style  of  dates 
is  used  unless  otherwise  indicated.    O.  S.  indicates  old  style;  N.  S.,  new  style. 

13  Neill,  Thomas  CornwaUis  and  Early  Maryland  Colonists,  p.  4. 
"  Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  p.  170. 

»/6idem,  p.  131. 


INTRODUCTION  5 

portant  posts  in  the  early  development  of  the  history  of  Lord 
Baltimore's  palatinate.  This  form  of  administration  lasted 
until  the  arrival  of  the  commission  of  November  28,  1637, 
when  the  Government  was  reorganized.  The  office  of 
Lieutenant  General  or  Governor  remained  with  Leonard 
Calvert;  the  duties  of  Secretary,  Registrar  of  the  Land 
Office,  Collector  of  the  Customs  and  Receiver  of  the  quit 
rents,  were  united  in  the  person  of  Mr.  Lewger,  and  the 
latter,  together  with  Hawley  and  Cornwaleys,  the  former 
Commissioners,  were  made  members  of  the  Council  of  the 
Province,  which  superseded  the  original  commission.  ^^ 

It  is  strange  that  among  the  writers  of  the  early  history  of 
Maryland,  Thomas  Cornwaleys  has  received  little  attention. 
The  longest  account  concerning  him  is  that  by  Streeter  in  his 
work.  Papers  relating  to  the  Early  History  of  Maryland. 
Neill  wrote  two  articles  on  Thomas  Cornwaleys'  life.  The 
first  is  entitled  Thomas  Cornwallis  and  Early  Maryland 
Colonists;  the  other,  Thomas  Cornwallis,  Commissioner, 
written  in  his  book.  The  Founders  of  Maryland.  Streeter's 
work,  though  it  contains  few  references  has  been  found 
reliable.  Neill,  however,  is  frequently  biased.  He  affirms 
that  Cornwaleys  was  a  Protestant,  though  all  authorities  are 
agreed  that  he  was  a  Catholic.  In  fact,  whenever  there  is  a 
question  of  religion  entering  into  any  of  Cornwaleys'  acts, 
Neill  forms  an  a  priori  conclusion  that  his  religion  was 
Protestant.  Since  the  publication  of  Streeter' s  work  several 
valuable  contributions  to  Maryland's  early  history  have 
thrown  light  upon  many  phases  of  Cornwaleys'  career. 

As  one  of  the  founders  of  Maryland,  Thomas  Cornwaleys 
should  be  better  known.  As  a  legislator  in  the  Assembly,  he 
upholds  the  rights  of  Lord  Baltimore  against  the  machina- 
tions of  Claiborne  and  others.  As  an  advocate  of  the  rights 
of  the  people  he  is  always  found  a  ready  and  an  able  champion 
of  their  cause.  As  an  upholder  of  religious  toleration,  he 
stands  ready  to  condemn  any  infraction  of  his  Lordship's 
orders  to  obtain  this  end.     In  his  capacity  as  Captain  General 

"  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  p.  104. 


6  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

of  the  military  forces  of  the  colony  he  is  always  prepared  to 
defend  the  colony  against  the  hostile  Indians  as  well  as 
against  the  incursions  of  Claiborne.  His  relations  with  the 
Jesuits  in  Maryland  were  most  cordial.  In  his  dealings 
with  his  fellow-men  he  was  always  trustworthy,  faithful  and 
honorable.  As  a  CathoHc,  he  deserves  the  reputation  of  a 
staunch  adherent  of  the  ancient  faith.  Russell  says  of  him: 
''  He  enjoys  the  singular  distinction  of  having  been  the  trusted 
friend  of  the  Proprietary,  of  the  colonists  and  of  the  mis- 
sionaries; and  of  being  the  only  man  in  the  colony  who  has 
been  universally  praised  by  Protestant  and  Catholic  writers 
ahke."  17 


1^  Russell,  Maryland  the  Land  of  Sanctuary,  p.  104. 


•  •     •      • 

•  ••    . 


CHAPTER  II 

The  Maryland  Charter 

The  Maryland  Charter  was  granted  to  CeciUus  Calvert, 
second  Lord  Baltimore,  on  June  20,  1632.  This  document 
was  the  bill  of  rights  that  was  to  regulate  all  the  deaUngs 
of  the  Proprietary  with  his  subjects.  It  was  to  form  the 
norm  according  to  which  all  the  functions  of  the  Government 
whatever  character  these  might  assume,  were  to  be  deter- 
mined. As  Thomas  Cornwaleys  was  to  become  one  of  the 
leaders  in  the  legislative,  judicial  and  military  Hfe  of  the 
Maryland  colony,  it  is  necessary  to  have  an  idea  as  to  what 
were  the  privileges  and  rights  as  well  as  the  limitations  of 
those  who  stood  in  a  position  to  direct  the  destines  of  the 
infant  colony.  A  brief  analysis  of  this  interesting  document 
will  therefore  be  given  in  this  chapter.^ 

The  boundaries  of  the  new  province  were  as  fol- 
lows: ^'All  that  part  of  the  Peninsula,  or  Chersonese, 
lying  in  the  parts  of  America,  between  the  ocean  on 
the  east,  and  the  bay  of  Chesapeake  on  the  west, 
divided  from  the  residue  thereof  by  a  right  line  drawn 
from  the  promontory,  or  head-land,  called  Watkin's 
Point,  situate  upon  the  bay  aforesaid,  near  the  river 
Wighco,  on  the  west,  unto  the  main  ocean  on  the 
east;  and  between  that  boundary  on  the  south,  unto 
that  part  of  the  bay  Delaware  on  the  north,  which 
lieth  under  the  fortieth  degree  of  north  latitude  from 
the  equinoctial,  where  New  England  is  terminated: 
and  all  the  tract  of  that  land  within  the  metes  under- 
written (that  is  to  say)  passing  from  the  said  bay, 
called  Delaware  bay,  in  a  right  line,  by  the  degree 
aforesaid,  unto  the  true  meridian  of  the  first  fountain 
of  the  river  Potomac,  thence  verging  toward  the 
south,  unto  a  certain  place  called  Cinquack,  situate 
near  the  mouth  of  the  said  river,  where  it  disem- 
bogues into  the  aforesaid  bay  of  Chesapeake,  and 
thence  by  the  shortest  line  unto  the  aforesaid 
promontory  or  place,  called  Watkin's  Point;  so  that 


1  For  the  text  of  the  Maryland  Charter,  see:  Bozman,  History  of  Maryland, 
Vol  II,  pp.  9  et  seq.;  Mereness,  Maryland  as  a  Proprietary  Province,  pp.  507 
et  seq. 

7 


^^n^^i^j^i>^^n.JA% 


8  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

the  whole  tract  of  land,  divided  by  the  line  afore- 
said, between  the  main  ocean  and  Watkin's  Point, 
unto  the  promontory  called  Cape  Charles,  and  every 
the  appendages  thereof  "  ^ 

The  colony  received  its  name  in  this  manner.  The  charter 
was  drawn  up  with  a  blank  where  the  name  of  the  territory 
was  to  be  inserted.  Calvert  wished  it  to  be  called  Cres- 
centia,  or  the  land  of  Cresence,  but  he  left  it  to  the  option  of 
the  king  to  designate  the  title  of  the  colony.  The  king  put 
the  question  to  Lord  Baltimore,  who  said  that  he  would  call 
it  something  in  honor  of  his  Majesty,  but  that  he  was  de- 
prived of  this  happiness  owing  to  the  fact  that  a  province  had 
already  been  named  for  him,  namely,  Carolina.  Charles 
then  suggested  that  the  name  be  given  in  honor  of  the  queen 
and  proposed  Terra  Mariae,  or  Maryland,  which  was  then 
agreed  upon  and  inserted  in  the  document.  Thus  the  pro- 
proposed  palatinate  was  named  after  Henrietta  Maria, 
daughter  of  Henry  IV,  King  of  France  and  Navarre,  and 
sister  of  Louis  XIII.^ 

The  origin  of  the  term  ^  ^palatine"  is  usually  ascribed  to  the 
Merovingian  Kings  of  France,  who  delegated  a  quasi-royal 
power  in  judicial  matters  to  an  official  known  as  ^^  count  of 
the  palace,"  comes  palatii  or  palatinus.  The  feudal  lord 
could  annex  to  the  lands  which  he  granted  to  his  vassals  such 
a  portion  of  the  jura  regalia  as  he  deemed  fit,  reserving  to 
himself  the  suzerainty.^ 

The  territory  granted  to  Cecilius  Calvert  was  to  be  a 
palatinate  as  of  the  old  bishopric  of  Durham  in  England. 
The  Lord  Proprietor  of  Maryland  was  to  have  ''as  ample 
rights,  jurisdictions,  privileges,  prerogatives,  royalties,  liber- 
ties, immunities,  and  royal  rights,  and  temporal  franchises 
whatsoever,  as  well  as  by  sea  as  by  land,  within  the  region, 
islands,  islets,  and  limits  aforesaid,  to  be  had,  exercised,  used, 
and  enjoyed,  as  any  bishop  of  Durham,  within  the  bishopric 
or  county  palatine  of  Durham,  in  our  kingdom  of  England, 

2  Mereness,  op.  cit,  pp.  507-8. 

3  Scharf,  History  of  Maryland,  Vol.  i,  pp.  51-2. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  60. 


THE   MARYLAND    CHARTER  9 

ever  heretofore  hath  had,  held,  used,  or  enjoyed,  or  of  right 
could,  or  ought  to  have,  hold,  use,  or  enjoy."  ^  Lord  Balti- 
more's grant  was  to  be  held  in  free  and  common  socage,  * 
obliging  him  to  deUver  annually  at  the  Castle  of  Windsor, 
unto  the  king,  his  heirs  and  successors,  two  Indian  arrows  on 
the  Tuesday  in  Easter  Week,  as  well  as  the  fifth  part  of  all 
gold  and  silver  found. 

Under  the  stipulations  of  the  charter,  the  Proprietor  of  the 
Province  was  the  owner  of  its  soil.  It  empowered  him,  as 
well  as  his  heirs  and  assigns,  to  make  feudal  grants  of  any 
estate  or  interest  in  the  land,  to  be  held  directly  of  them  by 
the  same  tenure  under  which  they  themselves  held  it  of  the 
sovereign.  This  rendered  the  Proprietor  the  sole  tenant  of 
the  crown,  and  exclusive  manorial  lord  of  Maryland.  The 
tenure  of  free  and  common  socage  was  common  to  the  pro- 
prietor as  well  as  to  those  holding  sub-grants.  The  serv- 
ices rendered  under  it  by  the  tenant  to  the  landlord,  in 
acknowledgment  or  consideration  of  the  grant,  were  fixed  and 
determinate,  so  that  the  tenant  was  above  the  reach  of 
exaction.  They  were  of  so  free  a  character  as  not  to  degrade 
the  tenant,  and  were  pacific  in  their  nature,  in  contradis- 
tinction of  the  military  services  which  might  be  required 
under  the  tenure  by  knight's  service.^  Conformably  to  this 
tenure,  the  manner  and  terms  of  the  Proprietary's  grants 
were  left  exclusively  to  his  own  determination,  and  he  re- 
tained exclusive  control  over  them  throughout  the  whole 
epoch  of  the  proprietary  government.  His  conditions  of 
plantation,  proclamations  and  instructions  always  delineated 
the  conditions  under  which  the  lands  were  granted,  as  well  as 
the  manner  and  terms  of  the  grant.  ^  All  officers  who  received 
delegated  power  in  territorial  jurisdiction  from  the  Pro- 
prietary were  appointed  by  him  and  were  subject  to  his 
removal  at  pleasure.^ 

^  Browne,  Maryland  the  History  of  a  Palatinate,  Note,  p.  19. 
«  McMahon,  An  Historical  View  of  the  Government  of  Maryland,  Vol.  i  (the 
only  volume  published),  p.  168. 
'  Ibid.,  pp.  168-9. 
^Ibid. 
*  Ibid.,  p.  50. 


10  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

In  regard  to  the  legislative  powers  of  the  Proprietary,  the 
Charter  conferred  on  him  included  generally  all  the  objects 
of  legislation  within  the  province  with  the  proviso  that  the 
laws  be  consonant  to  reason,  and  not  repugnant  or  contrary, 
but  agreeable  to  the  laws,  statutes,  customs,  and  rights  of  the 
kingdom  of  England.  The  document  furthermore  enjoined 
that  the  enactment  of  laws  be  effected  with  the  advice,  assent, 
and  approbation  of  the  freemen  of  the  same  province,  or  of 
the  greater  part  of  them,  or  of  their  delegates  or  deputies. 
These  were  to  be  called  together  for  the  framing  of  laws^ 
when,  and  as  often  as  need  should  require.  The  right  to 
determine  the  form  and  manner  of  calUng  the  Assembly  was 
expressly  vested  in  the  Lord  Proprietor  of  the  Palatinate.  ^^ 
Such  a  government  of  laws,  administered  by  freemen,  was 
the  nursery  of  our  free  principles  and  institutions.  In 
contrast  with  all  the  colonial  governments  of  that  day,  we 
may  truly  say  of  it,  that  it  was  full  of  power  and  privilege  to 
the  subject.^^ 

Just  as  the  Charter  conferred  extensive  legislative  powers 
so  also  did  it  empower  the  executive  to  enforce  these  laws 
by  the  imposition  of  fines,  imprisonment  or  of  any  punish- 
ment in  accordance  with  the  law  of  England.  In  fact, 
it  even  gave  him  the  authority  to  punish  crimes  to  the 
extent  of  privation  of  member  or  Ufe.  It  gave  the  Baron 
of  Baltimore  the  authority  to  constitute  and  ordain  judges, 
justices,  magistrates  and  officers  as  he  deemed  fit.  In 
short,  he  was  authorized  ^Ho  do  all  and  singular  other 
things  belonging  to  the  completion  of  justice  ...  to  award 
process,  hold  pleas,  and  determine  in  those  courts,  praetorian 
judicatories,  and  tribunals,  in  all  actions,  suits,  cases  and 
matters  whatseover,  as  well  criminal  as  personal,  real  mixed, 
and  praetorian."  ^^  In  the  execution  of  justice  the  usages 
and  customs  of  the  mother  coimtry  had  an  important 
influence.  Just  as  in  the  palatinate  of  Durham,  so  also  in 
Maryland,  the  freemen  met  in  the  capacity  of  a  law  court  as 

1°  Mereness,  op.  dt.,  p.  195. 
"  McMahon,  op.  dt.,  p.  183. 
"  Cf .  Charter,  Section  vii. 


THE   MARYLAND    CHARTER  11 

well  as  in  that  of  a  legislative  assembly  and  thus  we  find  that 
body  occasionally  trying  offenders  accused  of  crimes  from 
that  of  a  simple  misdemeanor  to  that  of  piracy,  murder,  or 
treason.  ^^ 

The  fourteenth  section  of  the  Charter  provides  for  the 
proper  recognition  of  merit,  and  empowers  Baltimore  to 
grant  favors,  rewards  and  honors  by  conferring  titles  and 
dignities.  This  prerogative,  however,  was  subject  to  the 
restriction  ^Hhat  they  be  not  such  as  are  now  used 
in  England"  a  restriction,  as  McMahon  observes, ^"^  that 
rendered  the  power  a  mere  nuUity.  The  same  historian 
states  ^^  that  the  first  proprietary  in  some  of  his  early  in- 
structions cherished  the  idea  of  conferring  dignities  as  endur- 
ing personal  distinctions,  but  fortunately  for  the  colony,  the 
design  was  never  carried  into  effect  as  the  existence  of  a 
titled  gentry  would  have  proved  a  dangerous  obstacle  to  the 
growth  of  liberty  in  the  colony.  This  same  section  invested 
the  Proprietary  with  the  faculty  of  erecting  and  incorporating 
towns,  boroughs  and  cities,  ^^  with  suitable  privileges  and  im- 
munities, according  to  the  merits  of  the  inhabitants,  and 
convenience  of  the  places;  and  to  do  all  and  singular  other 
things  in  the  premises,  which  to  him  or  them  (his  successors) 
shall  seem  fitting  and  convenient;  even  although  they  shall 
be  such  as,  in  their  own  nature,  require  a  more  special  com- 
mandment and  warrant  than  in  these  presents  may  be  ex- 
pressed." These  prerogatives  may  be  placed  under  the 
caption  of  regal  rights  vested  in  the  Proprietary.  To  these 
are  added  the  pardoning  power  whereby  this  personage  was 
enabled  to  remit  and  pardon  all  crimes  and  offenses  against 
the  laws  of  the  province  whether  before  or  after  the  pro- 
nouncement of  judgment.^^  This  faculty  extended  even 
beyond  the  royal  grant  so  that  the  Proprietary  had  the  power 
of  pardoning  all  offenses  committed  in  his  domain,  even  if 


"  Mereness,  op.  cit.,  p.  228. 
"  McMahon,  ov.  cit.,  p.  158. 
"  Ibid. 
"  Scharf,  op.  cit.,  p.  61. 


12  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

they  arose  under  English  statutes  operating  in  the  palatinate, 
as  well  as  the  laws  peculiar  to  the  province. ^^ 

Ecclesiastical  rights  were  vested  in  Lord  Baltimore  by  the 
grant  of  '^  the  patronages  and  advowsons  of  all  churches  which 
(with  the  increasing  worship  and  religion  of  Christ)  within  the 
said  region  .  .  .  shall  happen  to  be  built,  together  with 
hcense  and  faculty  of  erecting  and  founding  churches,  chapels, 
and  places  of  worship  .  .  .  ,  and  of  causing  the  same  to  be 
dedicated  and  consecrated  according  to  the  ecclesiastical 
laws  of  our  kingdom  of  England  ...  as  any  bishop  of 
Durham,  within  the  bishopric  or  county  palatine  of  Durham, 
in  our  kingdom  of  England,  ever  heretofore  hath  had,  held, 
used  or  enjoyed,  or  of  right  could,  or  ought  to  have,  hold,  use 
or  enjoy.''  ^^  Much  has  been  said,  and  much  written  regard- 
ing the  definition  of  the  terms  of  the  fourth  section  of  the 
Maryland  Charter,  by  those  who  assume  and  endeavor  to 
prove  that  it  was  a  provision  for  the  establishment  of  the 
Church  of  England  in  the  colony.  That  this  was  the  king's 
intention  in  granting  the  patent  which  was  issued  to  Lord 
Baltimore  under  a  misconception  of  the  latter's  rehgious 
attitude  and  subsequent  plans,  is  one  view.  Another  opin- 
ion has  it  that  the  King  and  Calvert  joined  in  false  representa- 
tion and  in  hoodwinking  the  EngUsh  people.  The  terms  of 
this  part  of  the  patent  have  been  twisted  and  tortured  into  a 
variety  of  significations,  and  have  been  viewed  at  whatever 
parallax  best  served  the  purpose  of  the  writers.  ^^ 

The  wording  of  the  section  of  the  Charter  deaUng  with  the 
rehgious  prerogatives  of  the  Maryland  Proprietary  does  not 
clear  up  the  difficulty.  Considering,  however,  the  attitude  of 
the  English  Ruler  toward  Lord  Baltimore  and  other  Catholic 
peers,  as  well  as  the  future  acts  of  Calvert  and  his  colonial 
government  it  becomes  clear  what  rehgious  power  he  actu- 
ally possessed.  Though  the  words  of  the  Charter  seem  to 
indicate  that  the  Church  of  England  was  the  only  one  with  a 
right  to  existence  in  Maryland,   nevertheless  it  allowed 

17  McMahon,  op.  cit.,  p.  159. 
1*  Mereness,  op.  cit.,  p.  509. 
"  Russell,  Maryland  the  Land  of  Sanctuary,  pp.  56-7. 


THE   MARYLAND   CHARTER  13 

latitude  to  found  other  churches.  The  Charters  of  Virginia 
and  Georgia  set  forth  in  no  ambiguous  terms  the  permission 
to  erect  churches,  chapels  and  oratories  and  of  causing  them 
to  be  dedicated  and  consecrated  according  to  the  ecclesiastical 
laws  of  England,  but  it  did  not  bind  him  to  do  so.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  one  of  the  first  things  done  in  the  colony  was 
to  dedicate  a  Roman  Catholic  Chapel. ^^  Furthermore,  the 
King  knew  full  well  the  religious  convictions  of  Cecilius 
Calvert  and  his  intentions  of  establishing  rehgious  toleration 
and  he  was  aware  that  Calvert  would  not  accede  to  the  obliga- 
tion of  fostering  the  religion  of  the  Church  of  England  to  the 
prejudice  of  his  project.^^ 

Military  powers  vested  in  the  Proprietary  according  to 
the  provisions  of  the  Charter  as  well  as  those  of  the  palatinate 
government  seem  to  have  been  granted  for  defensive  pur- 
poses only.  The  Proprietor  was  captain  general  of  the 
colonial  army  and  could  summon  the  inhabitants  for  the 
defense  of  the  province.  He  could  declare  and  exercise 
martial  law,  in  all  cases  of  rebellion,  sudden  tumult  or  sedi- 
tion. None  of  these  rights  were  to  conflict  with  the  military 
estabUshment  of  the  mother  country.  The  unhmited 
rights  of  war  and  peace  are  the  peculiar  privileges  of  the 
supreme  power.  Consequently  the  mihtary  rights  of  the 
colonials  were  a  part  of  the  sovereign  dominion  of  the 
crown.  The  mihtary  power  in  the  colony  was  accordingly 
very  properly  limited  to  the  protection  of  the  province  and 
was  given  merely  to  meet  a  state  of  actual  hostihty  to  it, 
arising  either  from  rebeUion,  invasion  or  warlike  array 
against  it.^^ 

One  more  aspect  of  the  Charter  remains  to  be  considered, 
namely,  the  financial  or  commercial.  The  Charter  of  Mary- 
land was  such  that  it  was  exalted  above  every  other  by  its 
commercial  privileges  and  exemptions.^^    The  colonists  were 

*°  Browne,  George  and  Cecilius  Calvert,  Note,  pp.  36-7. 
*\The  religious  rights  of  the  Proptietary  are  discussed  with  clearness  and 
abihty  by  Bishop  Russell,  op.  cit.,  pp.  56  et  seq. 
^  McMahon,  op.  cit.,  p.  160. 
23  Ibid.,  p.  162. 


14  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

enabled  by  it  to  export  all  articles  grown  or  produced  within 
the  province  to  any  of  the  ports  of  England  or  Ireland,  sub- 
ject only  to  the  customs  and  impositions  paid  in  similar 
cases  by  the  inhabitants  of  England.  The  proprietary 
possessed  full  and  absolute  power  of  establishing  the  ports 
of  entry  and  discharge  for  the  commerce  of  the  colony,  and 
to  invest  them  with  any  rights  and  privileges  that  he  deemed 
expedient.  Contributions  from  the  people  were  made  in  the 
form  of  taxes,  hcense  money,  fines  and  forfeitures.  These 
were  to  be  levied  for  military  protection,  for  the  pay  of  civil 
officers,  for  the  erection  of  public  buildings,  for  the  making 
of  pubHc  improvements,  etc.^^  The  King  by  the  Charter 
bound  himself  and  his  successors  to  lay  no  taxes,  customs, 
subsidies,  or  contributions  whatever  upon  the  colonists.^^ 
The  Proprietary  also  had  the  power  of  aHenating,  selling  or 
renting  the  land  granted  to  him  and  his  descendants  by  the 
Charter. 

Under  the  financial  aspect  of  the  Charter  arises  the  question 
as  to  whether  Lord  Baltimore  had  the  right  to  coin  money,  a 
prerogative  of  sovereignty.  Though  this  is  not  expressly 
mentioned  in  the  document,  he  had  this  right  as  Proprietor 
of  a  palatinate.2®  Whether  Calvert  used  it  is  not  certain. 
M.  F.  Howley,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Newfoundland ^"^"^ 
gives  an  interesting  account  of  the  discovery  of  a  coin  at 
Waterville,  Me.,  in  June,  1880.  He  ascribes  the  Waterville 
Penny  to  Lord  Baltimore's  colony  of  Avalon,  though  he 
admits  that  the  coin  may  belong  to  the  Avalon  of  Somerset- 
shire, England.  Browne  affirms  that  Baltimore  in  1659  had 
dies  cut  for  various  denominations  of  currency.  It  is  most 
probable,  however,  that  coins  were  never  used  and  that 
tobacco,  from  the  first,  remained  almost  the  sole  currency 
of  the  Province.^^ 


^  Mereness,  op.  ciL,  p.  339. 

25  Browne,  Maryland  the  History  of  a  Palatinate,  p.  20. 

26  Osgood,   The  Proprietary  Province  as  a  Form  of  Colonial  Government, 
article  in  American  Historical  Review,  Vol.  ii,  pp.  644  et  seq. 

2'  Howley,  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Newfoundland,  pp.  87-9. 
28  Browne,  op.  cit.,  p.  114. 


THE   MARYLAND    CHARTER  15 

Such  then  is  the  Maryland  Charter  in  brief  outline.  It 
gave  the  Proprietary  extraordinary  powers  that  might  have 
proved  oppressive  to  the  colonists  in  the  hands  of  a  man  less 
wise,  just,  and  humane  than  Cecihus  Calvert,  who  knew  how 
to  use  them  in  the  manner  best  fitted  to  attain  the  pur- 
poses for  which  the  province  was  founded.  ^'Though  often 
attacked, ^^  remarks  Browne,^^  ''and  at  times  held  in  abey- 
ance, the  charter  was  never  revoked,  and  was  only  cast  off 
when  the  arbitrary  power  of  England  had  violated  its 
pledges,  and  the  people  of  Maryland,  having  outgrown  their 
minority,  were  ready  to  take  the  sovereignty  into  their  own 
hands." 


29  Ibid.,  p.  20. 


CHAPTER  III 
Preparations  for  the  Voyage  to  Maryland 

Since  Lord  Baltimore's  colonization  project  was  chiefly  to 
secure  religious  toleration  for  the  oppressed  of  every  faith, 
it  is  necessary  to  have  a  knowledge  of  the  rehgious  state  of 
affairs  in  England  which  led  to  the  formation  of  his  plan  to 
secure  this  end.  George  Calvert,  the  First  Lord  Baltimore, 
to  whom  is  due  the  credit  of  conceiving  this  idea,  was  born 
in  1580,  and  became  a  Cathohc  in  1624.  At  the  time  of  his 
conversion,  James  I,  the  first  of  the  Stuart  Hne,  still  occupied 
the  throne. 

On  his  accession,  this  monarch  had  been  incHned  to  grant 
partial  indulgence  to  his  Catholic  subjects.  He  owed  it  to 
their  sufferings  in  the  cause  of  his  unfortunate  mother, 
Mary  Queen  of  Scots,  and  he  had  bound  himself  by  promises 
to  their  envoys.  But  his  secret  wishes  were  opposed  by  his 
advisers,  and,  if  he  was  ashamed  to  violate  his  word,  he 
dreaded  offending  his  Protestant  subjects.  At  last,  he  com- 
promised by  drawing  a  distinction  between  their  creed  and 
the  persons  of  the  petitioners.  To  every  prayer  for  the 
exercise  of  that  worship,  he  returned  a  prompt  and  definite 
refusal.  However,  he  invited  Cathohcs  to  frequent  his 
court  and  conferred  on  several  the  honors  of  knighthood. 
He  even  promised  to  shield  them  from  the  penalties  of 
recusancy,  as  long  as  by  their  loyal  and  peaceable  conduct 
they  should  deserve  the  royal  favor.  ^ 

The  Puritans  relied  with  equal  confidence  on  the  good- will 
of  their  sovereign.  Their  first  petitions  were  couched  in 
submissive  language.  But  they  gradually  assumed  a  bolder 
attitude  and  demanded  a  thorough  ^^reformation"  both  of  the 
clergy  and  the  liturgy.  The  king  was  irritated,  perhaps 
alarmed;  but  he  preferred  conciUation  to  severity,  and  invited 
four  of  the  leading  clergymen  of  their  persuasion  to  a  con- 
ference at  Hampton  Court. 

*  Lingard,  History  of  Englandf  Vol.  vii,  p.  15. 

16 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  THE  VOYAGE  TO  MARYLAND    17 

Though  the  result  of  this  conference  disappointed  the 
expectations  of  the  non-conformists,  they  did  not  despair 
of  bettering  their  condition;  but  the  king,  on  the  presentation 
of  a  petition  in  their  favor,  spoke  of  them  with  bitterness, 
which  showed  how  Httle  they  had  to  hope  for.  It  was,  he 
said,  to  a  similar  petition  that  the  rebeUion  in  the  Nether- 
lands owed  its  origin:  both  his  mother  and  he  had  been 
haunted  by  ''Puritan  devils''  from  their  cradles;  but  he 
would  hazard  his  very  crown  to  suppress  such  malicious 
spirits;  and  not  Puritans  only,  but  also  Papists,  whom  he 
hated  so  cordially  that,  if  he  thought  it  possible  for  his  son 
and  heir  to  grant  them  toleration  in  the  time  to  come,  he 
should  fairly  wish  to  see  the  young  prince  at  that  moment 
lying  in  his  grave. ^  It  was  decided  in  the  Star-Chamber  that 
attempts  to  move  the  sovereign  in  matters  of  rehgion  were  to 
be  construed  as  acts  tending  to  sedition  and  rebellion.  Orders 
were  consequently  issued  to  the  judges  and  magistrates  to 
enforce  to  the  utmost  the  penal  laws  against  non-conformists 
and  recusants. 

A  law  was  passed  in  the  first  year  of  the  reign  of  James  I, 
confirming  the  statutes  of  Elizabeth,  and  enacting,  ''that  the 
two-thirds  of  the  estates  seized  should  be  retained  after  the 
convict's  death,  until  all  arrears  of  the  penalties  are  paid,  and 
then  deUvered  over  to  the  heir,  provided  he  be  no  recusant. 
The  one-third,  however,  left  for  his  support,  is  not  to  be 
liable  to  seizure  for  the  penalties.  Persons  going  beyond  the 
sea,  to  any  Jesuit  seminary,  or  not  returning  within  one  year 
after  the  end  of  the  next  session  of  parliament,  were  rendered 
as  it  respects  themselves,  incapable  of  purchasing  or  enjoying 
any  lands  or  goods,  etc.  Women  also  and  children  under 
twenty-one,  are  restrained  from  passing  over  the  seas 
without  license  from  the  king,  or  six  of  his  Privy  Council. 
The  penalty  of  one  hundred  pounds,  levied  by  27  Eliz.  c.  2. 
on  those  who  send  any  child,  or  other  person  under  their 
obedience,  out  of  the  realm,  during  her  life,  is  here  made 


*Ibid.,  pp.  17-8. 


18  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

perpetual.  Persons  likewise,  who  keep  school,  otherwise 
than  in  some  university,  public  grammar-school,  or  in  the 
houses  of  noblemen  or  gentlemen,  not  being  recusant,  without 
leave  from  the  bishop,  together  with  those  who  retain  or 
maintain  them,  forfeit  forty  shillings  for  every  day  they  so 
wittingly  offend.  The  one  half  of  these  fines  is  for  the  king, 
the  other  for  the  informer."  ^ 

In  1605,  the  '^discovery"  of  the  Gunpowder  Plot  involved 
the  Catholics  in  fresh  troubles.  ^^To  a  thinking  mind,^' 
says  Lingard,  ^Hhe  late  conspiracy  must  have  proved  the 
danger  and  impolicy  of  driving  men  to  desperation  by  the 
punishment  of  religious  opinion.  But  the  warning  was  lost; 
the  existing  enactments,  oppressive  and  sanguinary  as  they 
were,  appeared  too  indulgent;  and  though  justice  had  been 
satisfied  by  the  death  and  execution  of  the  guilty,  revenge 
and  fanaticism  sought  out  additional  victims  among  the 
innocent."  ^  A  new  code  of  laws  was  accordingly  drawn  up. 
It  repealed  none  of  the  laws  in  force  but  added  to  their 
severity  by  two  new  bills  containing  more  than  seventy 
article^  inflicting  penalties  on  the  Catholics. 

Lingard  gives  us  a  digest  of  this  legislation  as  follows: 
'^1.  CathoUc  recusants  were  forbidden,  under  particular 
penalties,  to  appear  at  court,  to  dwell  within  the  boundaries, 
or  ten  miles  of  the  boundaries,  of  the  city  of  London,  or  to 
remove  on  any  occasion  more  than  five  miles  from  their 
homes,  without  a  special  Hcense  under  the  signatures  of  four 
neighboring  magistrates.  2.  They  were  made  incapable  of 
practicing  in  surgery  or  physic,  or  in  the  conmion  or  civil 
law;  of  acting  as  judges,  clerks,  or  officers  in  any  court  or 
corporation;  of  presenting  to  the  hvings,  schools,  or  hospitals 
in  their  gift;  or  of  performing  the  oflSces  of  administrators, 
executors,  or  guardians.  3.  Husbands  and  wives,  unless 
they  had  been  married  by  a  Protestant  minister,  were  made 
to  forfeit  every  benefit  to  which  he  or  she  might  otherwise 
be  entitled  from  the  property  of  the  other;  unless  their 

'  Madden,  The  History  of  the  Penal  Laws  enacted  against  Roman  Catholics 
pp.  169-170. 

*  Lingard,  op.  cit.,  p.  45. 


PREPARATIONS   FOR  THE   VOYAGE   TO  MARYLAND  19 

children  were  baptized  by  a  Protestant  minister  within  a 
month  after  the  birth,  each  omission  subjected  them  to  a 
fine  of  one  hundred  pounds;  and,  if  after  death  they  were  not 
buried  in  a  Protestant  cemetery,  their  executors  were  Hable 
to  pay  for  each  corpse  the  sum  of  twenty  pounds.  4.  Every 
child  sent  for  education  beyond  the  sea,  was  from  that 
moment  debarred  from  taking  any  benefit  by  devise,  descent, 
or  gift,  until  he  should  return  and  conform  to  the  established 
church,  all  such  benefit  being  assigned  by  law  to  the  Protes- 
tant next  of  kin.  5.  Every  recusant  was  placed  in  the  same 
situation  as  if  he  had  been  excommunicated  by  name;  his 
house  might  be  searched,  his  books  and  furniture,  having  or 
thought  to  have  any  relation  to  his  worship  or  religion,  might 
be  burnt,  and  his  horses  and  arms  might  be  taken  from  him  at 
any  time  by  order  of  the  neighboring  magistrates.  6.  All 
the  existing  penalties  for  absence  from  church  were  con- 
tinued, but  with  two  improvements:  (a)  It  was  made  optional 
in  the  king,  whether  he  would  take  the  fine  of  twenty  pounds 
per  lunar  month,  or  in  lieu  of  it,  all  the  personal,  and  two- 
thirds  of  the  real  estate;  and  (h)  Every  householder,  of  what- 
ever relig'on,  receiving  Catholic  visitors,  or  keeping  Catholic 
servants,  was  liable  to  pay  for  each  individual  ten  pounds  per 
lunar  month."  ^ 

Throughout  the  reign  of  James  I,  the  condition  of  Catholics 
was  deplorable.  The  king  himself  might  have  bettered  it 
had  he  the  courage  and  the  power  to  do  so.  In  every  pohtical 
crisis  and  in  any  pubUc  excitement,  Parhament  was  con- 
stantly clamoring  for  new  edicts  against  the  CathoHcs.^ 

The  penal  enactments  during  his  reign  were  five: 

An  Act  for  the  due  execution  of  the  statutes  against 
Jesuits,  seminary  priests,  recusants,  &c. 

An  Act  for  the  better  discovering  and  repressing  of 
popish  recusants. 

An  Act  to  prevent  and  avoid  dangers  which  may 
grow  by  popish  recusants. 


«/6td.,  p.  46. 

•  Madden,  op.  cit.,  p.  180. 


20  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

An  Act  to  cause  persons  to  be  naturalized  or 
restored  in  blood,  to  conform  and  take  the  oath  of 
allegiance  and  supremacy. 

An  Act  for  the  reformation  of  married  recusant 
women,  and  administration  of  the  oath  of  allegiance 
to  all  civil,  mihtary,  ecclesiastical  and  professional 
persons.^ 

Charles  I  succeeded  James  in  1625.  Had  he  been  left  to 
follow  the  dictates  of  his  naturally  easy-going  temperament, 
he  would  have  been  averse  to  persecution.  Moreover,  his 
marriage  to  Henrietta  Maria,  a  CathoUc,  would  have 
induced  him  to  measures  of  justice  towards  those  of  her 
communion.  But  the  increasing  insolence  of  the  Puritan 
fanatics,  their  constant  accusations  against  him  of  favoring 
Catholics,  induced  him  to  make  at  least  a  pretense  of  enforc- 
ing the  penal  laws.^ 

^' There  is  one  thing,"  says  Madden,  ^'that  ought  to  be 
borne  in  mind,  in  considering  the  persecution  of  the  Catholics 
in  those  times — all  the  Stuarts  were  averse  to  the  furious 
measures  of  their  Parliaments  against  CathoHcs.  They 
thought,  as  Charles  the  First  especially  did,  according  to 
Hume,  ^that  a  httle  humanity  was  due  by  the  nation  to  the 
reUgion  of  their  ancestors.'  Extreme  rage  against  Roman 
Catholics  was,  from  the  first  to  last,  the  true  characteristic 
of  Puritanism,  we  are  told  by  the  same  historian,  and  that 
rage  was  the  only  public  interest  that  could  be  said  to  be 
truly  represented  in  any  ParUament  of  James,  his  son,  or  his 
grand-children.' '  ^ 

Such  were  the  reHgious  conditions  about  the  time  that 
Lord  Baltimore  decided  to  found  an  entirely  new  colony 
which  should  be  a  refuge  for  those  of  his  own  faith,  which  he 
should  build  up  from  the  foundations,  and  where  his  quasi- 
royal  rule  would  shelter  CathoHcs  from  the  operations  of  the 
penal  statutes  and  the  persecutions  of  fanaticism. ^^  Nor  did 
he  confine  his  plan  of  toleration  to  those  of  his  own  creed,  for 

-'Ibid. 

8  Russell,  Maryland  the  Land  of  Sanctuary,  p.  19. 
8  Madden,  op.  dt.,  p.  186. 
i<>  Browne,  George  and  Cedlius  Calvert,  p.  28. 


PREPARATIONS  FOR  THE   VOYAGE   TO   MARYLAND         21 

Calvert  brought  over  settlers  without  regard  to  their  reUgious 
opinions,  making  Maryland  a  home  for  all,  a  refuge  to  men 
who  fled  from  the  persecution  ahke  of  those  who  upheld  the 
Church  of  England  and  those  who  while  fugitives  from  that 
very  persecution,  were  re-enacting  it  with  fearful  severity. ^^ 
Aside  from  the  fact  that  Maryland  was  the  first  of  the  pro- 
prietary governments,  the  colony  is  especially  remembered  in 
American  history  as  the  first  in  which  reUgious  toleration 
had  a  place. 

The  Maryland  Charter  had  been  granted  to  Cecilius 
Calvert,  the  second  Lord  Baltimore,  on  June  20,  1632,  and 
he  had  at  once  taken  measures  to  send  an  expedition  to  occupy 
his  newly  acquired  territory.  To  assemble  sufficient  men 
for  the  project  of  colonization  and  to  equip  them  with  all 
necessaries  for  the  voyage  and  for  habitation  in  so  distant  a 
country  as  yet  a  wilderness  occupied  much  time.  Added  to 
this,  the  Virginians  caused  further  delay  by  their  opposition 
to  the  Charter.  The  planters  of  Virginia  were  led  to  suppose 
that  the  soil  upon  which  they  trod  was  to  be  transferred  to 
others.  Accordingly  a  petition  was  drawn  up  in  the  name 
of  the  planters,  and  in  May,  1633,  laid  before  the  king,  in. 
which  they  remonstrated  ^Hhat  some  Grants  have  lately  been 
obtained  of  a  great  proportion  of  Lands  and  Territorys 
within  the  lymitts  of  the  Colonie  there  being  the  places  of 
their  Traffique,  and  so  near  to  their  habitations,  as  will  give 
a  generall  disheartning  to  the  Planters  if  they  be  divided 
into  severall  Governments,  and  a  Barre  to  that  Trade,  which 
they  have  long  exercised  towards  their  Supportation  and 
refiefe  under  the  confidence  of  his  Majesty's  royall  and 
gracious  intentions  towards  them.''  ^^ 

The  king  referred  the  consideration  of  this  matter  to  the 
Privy  Council.  On  June  4,  of  the  same  year,  the  council 
framed  an  order,  in  which  they  appointed  the  28th  of  that 
month,  when  the  business  should  be  heard  and  interested 
persons  might  attend.  This  being  done,  it  was  ordered  that 
Lord  Baltimore  and  those  who  championed  the  cause  of  the 

"  Shea,  Maryland  and  the  Controversies  as  to  her  Early  History,  in  American 
Catholic  Quarterly  Review,  Vol.  x,  p.  658. 

"  /// — Archives  of  Maryland,  Council,  p.  21. 


22  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

planters  should  meet  and  settle  their  controversy  in  a 
friendly  manner.  Their  propositions  were  to  be  committed 
to  writing  and  presented  to  their  lordships  on  July  3,  1633. 
This  order  was  complied  with  and  it  was  finally  ruled  that  it 
was  fit  'Ho  leave  the  Lord  Baltimore  to  his  Patent  and  the 
other  Partie  to  the  course  of  Lawe  according  to  their  desire; 
but  for  the  preventing  of  further  questions  their  Lordshipps 
did  also  think  fit  and  order  that  things  standing  as  they  doe, 
the  Planters  on  either  side  shall  have  free  traflfique  and  com- 
merce each  with  other,  and  that  neither  parte  shall  receive 
any  fugitive  persons  belonging  to  the  other,  nor  doe  any  Act 
which  may  drawe  a  warre  from  the  Natives  upon  either  of 
them;  and  lastly  that  they  shall  sincerely  enterteine  all  good 
correspondence  and  assist  each  other  on  all  occasions,  in  such 
manner  as  becometh  fellow-subjects  and  members  of  the 
same  state."  ^^  However,  this  did  by  no  means  put  an  end 
to  the  annoyance  from  Virginia  which  was  destined  to  last  for 
many  years  and  which  was  to  reach  its  acute  stage  through  the 
action  of  William  Clayborne,  a  name  that  fills  a  conspicuous 
page  in  the  early  annals  of  the  Maryland  colony.  The  part 
played  by  Thomas  Cornwaleys  in  helping  to  settle  difficulties 
will  be  recounted  in  a  subsequent  chapter. 

The  summer  and  autunrn  of  1633  were  spent  in  prepara- 
tions on  the  part  of  Lord  Baltimore  for  his  new  plantation. 
Finding  that  his  presence  was  required  in  England  to  look 
after  important  business  connected  with  his  plantation, 
Cecihus  Calvert  reluctantly  gave  up  the  leadership  of  the 
enterprise,  trusting  ''by  the  grace  of  God''  to  be  in  Maryland 
in  the  following  year.^^  It  was  imperative  that  he  remain  in 
England  since  it  was  ever  necessary  to  guard  the  privileges 
of  his  Charter  in  the  troubled  years  that  en  ued;  and  the 
Proprietary  of  Maryland  never  saw  his  distant  province. 
He  accordingly  appointed  his  brother,  Leonard  Calvert, 
to  the  governorship  of  Maryland,  a  younger  brother,  George 
Calvert,  accompanying  the  expedition.  ^^ 


"  Ibid. ;  also  Bozman,  History  of  Maryland,  Vol.  ii,  p.  24. 

1*  Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  p.  134. 

i**  Steiner,  Beginnings  of  Maryland,  p.  16. 


PREPARATIONS   FOR   THE   VOYAGE    TO   MARYLAND  23 

Enemies  of  the  colonial  project  were  ever  on  the  alert  to 
hinder  Lord  Baltimore's  plans.  Rumors  were  carried  to  the 
Privy  Council  that  he  intended  to  carry  nuns  over  into  Spain 
and  also  soldiers  to  serve  the  Spanish  sovereign.  When  the 
Council  laughed  at  these  stories,  the  Attorney-General  was 
induced  ^^ to  make  an  information  in  the  Star  Chamber"  that 
the  vessels  carrying  the  colonists  had  departed  without 
proper  custom  house  papers  and  in  contempt  of  all  authority, 
the  emigrants  abusing  the  king's  officers  and  refusing  to  take 
the  Oath  of  Allegiance. ^^ 

On  October  19,  1633,  Lord  Coke,  the  British  Secretary  of 
State,  informed  Admiral  Pennington  that  the  Ark  of  which 
Richard  Lowe  was  master,  carrying  men  for  Lord  Baltimore 
to  his  new  plantation,  had  sailed  contrary  to  orders,  the  com- 
pany not  having  taken  the  oath  of  allegiance.  He  was 
accordingly  instructed  to  have  the  Ark  and  the  Dove  brought 
back.  After  the  vessels  were  anchored  near  Gravesend, 
they  were  visited  by  Edward  Watkins,  the  London  Searcher, 
who  administered  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  to  all  whom  he 
found  on  board. 

Upon  his  return  from  this  duty  Watkins  made  the  fol- 
lowing report  to  the  Privy  Council: 

According  to  your  Lordship's  order  of  the  25th 
day  of  this  instant  month  of  October,  I  have  been 
at  Tillbury  Hope  where  I  found  a  ship  and  pinnace 
belonging  to  the  Right  Honorable  Cecil  Lord  Balti- 
more, where  I  offered  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  all  and 
every  the  persons  aboard,  to  the  number  of  128,  who 
took  the  same,  and  inquiring  of  the  master  of  the  ship 
whether  any  more  persons  were  to  go  the  said  voy- 
age, he  answered  that  some  few  others  were  shipped 
who  had  forsaken  the  ship  and  given  over  the  voyage, 
by  reason  of  the  stay  of  said  ships.^^ 

That  Thomas  Cornwaleys  took  the  oath  of  allegiance 
seems  beyond  doubt.  He  was  one  of  the  most  prominent 
men  of  the  expedition  and  in  all  probabihty  on  the  Ark  when 
the  oath  was  tendered.    Whether  it  was  lawful  for  a  Catholic 


"  Browne,  op.  cit.,  p.  41;  also  Steiner,  op.  cit.,  p.  19. 
*'  Scharf ,  History  of  Maryland,  pp.  67-8. 


24  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

to  take  the  Oath  was  a  much  mooted  question  at  the  time. 
Those  who  held  that  the  Oath  contained  matter  objectionable 
to  CathoUc  beUef  had  the  better  of  the  argument.  However, 
since  the  question  was  not  finally  decided,  we  cannot  censure 
Cornwaleys  for  taking  the  Oath  when  asked  to  do  so.^^ 

Whilst  the  ships  were  still  lying  in  Cowes  harbor  at  the 
Isle  of  Wight,  Lord  Baltimore,  on  November  13,  1633,  sent 
a  list  of  Instructions  to  Leonard  Calvert,  Jerome  Hawley 
and  Thomas  Cornwaleys,  for  the  government  of  the  expedi- 
tion during  the  voyage  and  upon  their  arrival  at  their  destina- 
tion.^^ The  letter  reveals  the  wisdom  of  Cecilius  Calvert. 
That  religious  toleration  was  uppermost  in  his  mind  is 
evident  from  the  opening  paragraph.  The  first  ^^  Instruc- 
tion^' is  couched  in  this  language: 

I.  Inpri:  His  Lopp  requires  his  said  Governor  and 
Commissioners  that  in  their  voyage  to  Mary  Land 
they  be  very  careful  to  preserve  unity  and  peace 
amongst  all  the  passengers  on  Shipp-board,  and  that 
they  suffer  no  scandall  nor  offence  to  be  given  to  any 
of  the  Protestants,  whereby  any  just  Complaint  may 
heereafter  be  made  by  them,  in  Virginea  or  in  Eng- 
land, and  that  for  that  end  they  Cause  all  Acts  of 
Romane  Catholique  Religion  to  be  done  as  privately 
as  may  be,  and  that  they  instruct  all  the  Romane 
Catholiques  to  be  silent  upon  all  occasions  of  dis- 
course concerning  matters  of  Religion;  and  that  the 
said  Governor  and  Commissioners  treate  the 
Protestants  wth  as  much  mildness  and  favor  as 
Justice  will  permit.  And  this  to  be  observed  at 
Land  as  well  as  at  Sea. 

The  instructions  that  followed  are  not  without  interest. 
Dihgent  inquiry  was  to  be  made  among  the  sailors  and  pas- 
sengers to  ascertain  what  they  knew  concerning  the  plots  of 
his  Lordship's  adversaries  to  overthrow  his  voyage.  They 
should  find  out  the  names  and  actions  of  any  concerned  in 
the  plots  together  with  all  the  circumstances.  Any  infor- 
mation gotten  on  the  voyage  or  after  their  arrival  in  the  colony 

1*  For  the  text  of  the  Oath  of  Allegiance,  cf.  Russell,  op.  cit.,  pp.  529-30. 
For  an  account  of  the  controversy  on  the  Oath,  cf .  Dodd,  Church  History  of 
England,  Vol.  iv;  also  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  article  "Oath  of  Allegiance,"  pp. ' 
177  et  seq. 

1*  The  complete  letter  is  to  be  found  in  the  Calvert  Papers,    No.  i,  pp.  131 
et  seq. 


PREPARATIONS    FOR   THE    VOYAGE   TO   MARYLAND  25 

was  to  be  sent  in  writing  to  the  Proprietary  by  a  trusty 
messenger  ''in  the  next  shipps  that  returne  for  England.'^ 

Upon  their  arrival  at  the  coast  of  Virginia,  they  are  not  to 
go  to  Jamestown  or  to  Point  Comfort  ''unless  they  should  be 
forct  unto  it  by  some  extremity  of  weather  (which  God 
forbidd)  for  the  preservation  of  their  Hves  and  goodes,  and 
that  they  find  it  altogether  impossible  otherwise  to  preserve 
themselves."  They  were  to  inquire  upon  arrival  if  anyone 
could  guide  them  to  the  "Bay  of  Chesapeacke"  and  "Patta- 
womeck  River"  in  order  to  find  a  proper  place  for  their 
settlement. 

Whilst  engaged  in  looking  for  an  appropriate  location,  they 
were  directed  to  send  a  trustworthy  messenger,  who  should 
be  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England  to  carry  the  royal 
instructions  to  the  Governor  and  Council  of  Virginia.  This 
messenger  was  also  to  take  a  personal  letter  from  Baltimore 
to  Sir  John  Harvey  in  which  he  expressed  his  regret  that  he 
could  not  come  personally  to  Maryland  till  the  next  year. 
He  desired  a  "good  correspondency"  with  him  and  the  Plan- 
tation of  Virginia.  He  furthermore  assures  Harvey  of  his 
particular  affection  to  his  person  by  reason  of  the  reports 
of  his  worth,  and  for  the  kind  letters  Harvey  sent  the  Pro- 
prietary since  he  heard  of  Baltimore's  intention  to  become  his 
neighbor. 

With  respect  to  Claiborne,  Baltimore's  poUcy  was  shrewd 
and  peaceable.  As  soon  as  convenient,  a  man  of  the  Church 
of  England  was  to  take  a  letter  to  him,  notifying  him  of  the 
arrival  of  the  colonists,  and  of  the  authority  over  the  province 
committed  to  Leonard  Calvert,  Hawley  and  Cornwaleys,  and 
inviting  him  to  speak  with  them  on  business  of  importance. 
If  Claiborne  agrees  to  meet  the  Maryland  authorities  he  is 
to  be  courteously  received  and  to  be  assured  of  Baltimore's 
willingness  to  give  all  the  encouragement  he  can  to  proceed  in 
the  plantation  that  he  had  settled  within  his  Lordship's 
precincts.  In  case  Claiborne  does  not  accept  the  invitation, 
he  is  not  to  be  disturbed  for  the  first  year,  until  the  Pro- 
prietary can  give  further  instructions.  Meanwhile  the  colon- 
ists are  to  keep  informed  as  to  the  progress  of  his  plantation 
and  his  designs,  and  furthermore  his  strength  and  his  cor- 


26  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

respondence  with  Virginia.  They  are  also  to  keep  posted 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Virginians  view  the  Maryland 
Charter. 

The  other  portions  of  the  letter  concern  the  colonists  them- 
selves. Upon  their  choice  of  a  plantation  his  Majesty's 
letters  patent  are  to  be  pubhcly  read  before  the  people,  after 
which,  his  Lordship's  Commission  was  to  be  laid  before  them. 
Either  the  Governor  or  one  of  the  Commissioners  is  to  declare 
his  Lordship's  intentions  which  are:  The  honor  of  God  to  be 
secured  by  the  conversion  of  the  savages  to  Christianity,  the 
extension  of  his  Majesty's  domains,  to  provide  for  the  success 
and  comfort  of  those  who  have  made  great  sacrifices  to  plant 
the  colony.  Finally  an  oath  of  allegiance  is  to  be  adminis- 
tered to  all  to  give  public  assurance  of  their  fidelity  and 
allegiance  to  his  Majesty. 

The  colonists  are  to  provide  a  suitable  place  for  a  fort. 
Near  this  is  to  be  built  a  house  for  the  Governor  or  other 
Commissioners  with  a  church  or  chapel  adjacent.  The 
planters  are  to  receive  a  proper  allotment  of  land  whereon  to 
build  their  homes.  These  are  to  be  built  uniformly  and  as 
near  to  the  others  as  possible.  Streets  are  to  be  marked  off. 
An  account  of  this  is  to  be  sent  to  Lord  Baltimore  so  that  he 
may  be  satisfied  that  justice  had  been  done  to  every  man. 
Military  protection  is  provided  for  by  the  training  and 
drilling  of  men  at  stated  times. 

^'In  this  interesting  document,"  says  Browne,^^  "we  see 
the  principles  of  Baltimore's  policy,  and  the  germs  of  the 
polity  of  Maryland.  ReUgious  toleration,  ^unity  and  peace' 
between  members  of  different  faiths,  began  on  the  Ark  and 
Dove,  Whether  we  attribute  it  to  wise  policy,  to  the  cogency 
of  circumstances,  or  to  a  Uberal  and  tolerant  spirit,  in  ad- 
vance of  his  age,  on  the  part  of  the  proprietary,  the  fact 
remains  the  same  that  equal  justice  and  Christian  charity  to 
both  Catholic  and  Protestant  was  the  key-note  of  his  rule 
.  .  .  No  one,  we  think,  can  read  these  instructions  without 
seeing  that  they  proceed  from  a  wise,  just  and  generous 
man." 


20  Browne,  op.  cit.,  p.  57. 


CHAPTER  IV 

The  Settlement  of  Maryland 

After  the  colonists  left  Gravesend,  where  they  seem  to 
have  been  detained  for  several  weeks,  the  Ark  and  the  Dove 
took  on  board  among  others  two  Jesuit  Fathers,  Andrew 
White  and  John  Altham.  The  personnel  of  the  party  being 
complete  with  the  arrival  of  these,  we  can  now  consider  the 
number  of  the  passengers  on  the  two  ships.  And  this  can- 
not be  stated  with  any  estimate  approaching  exactitude. 
Lord  Baltimore  wrote  to  Lord  Wentworth  before  the  depar- 
ture that  besides  his  two  brothers,  *^very  near  twenty  other 
gentlemen  of  very  good  fashion"  had  accompanied  the 
expedition.^ 

Cecilius  Calvert  in  the  *' Conditions  of  Plantation"  pub- 
lished in  a  work  entitled  A  Relation  of  Maryland,^  gives 
a  list  containing  ^'The  names  of  the  Gentlemen  adventurers 
that  are  gone  in  person  to  this  Plantation  " :  Leonard  Calvert, 
the  Governor;  George  Calvert,  his  Lordship's  brothers; 
Jerome  Hawley,  Esq.,  Thomas  Cornwaleys,  Esq.,  the  Com- 
missioners; Richard  Gerard,  son  to  Sir  Thomas  Gerard, 
Knight  and  Baronet;  Edward  Win  tour,  Frederick  Win  tour, 
sonnes  of  the  Lady  Anne  Win  tour;  Henry  Wiseman,  son  to 
Sir  Thomas  Wiseman,  Knight;  John  Saunders,  Edward 
Cranfield,  Henry  Greene,  Nicholas  Ferfax,  John  Baxter, 
Thomas  Dorrell,  Captaine  John  Hill,  John  Madcalfe, 
WilUam  Saire." 

Besides  these  gentlemen  many  others  went  along  as  is 
evident.  The  London  Searcher  mentioned  in  the  last 
chapter  reported  that  about  one  hundred  and  twenty-eight 
had  taken  the  Oath  of  Allegiance.    This  number  was  added 


1  Radcliffe,  Letters  and  Dispatches  of  Thomas  Wentworth  Strafford,  Vol.  i, 
pp.  178-9. 

2  A  Relation  of  Maryland,  edited  by  Francis  L.  Hawks,  p.  65.  This  work 
must  not  be  confounded  with  Father  White's  Relatio  Itineris  in  Marylandiam, 
nor  with  A  Brief  Relation  of  the  Voyage  unto  Maryland  {Calvert  Papers,  No. 
III).  In  our  notes,  when  referring  to  Father  White's  work,  the  word  "Relatio" 
is  used,  while  in  referring  to  the  other,  "A  Brief  Relation  '  is  used. 

27 


28  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

to  when  they  left  Gravesend  so  that  it  was  brought  up  to 
three  hundred.^ 

Richardson,  in  Side-Lights  on  Maryland  History,"^  mentions 
some  of  the  party  that  travelled  on  the  Ark,  and  others  that 
went  on  the  Dove.  On  the  former  were  the  following: 
Leonard  Calvert;  the  Commissioners,  Hawley  and  Corn- 
waleys;  Richard  Lowe,  Master  of  the  Ark,  John  Bowlter, 
Purser;  Richard  Edwards,  Surgeon;  on  the  latter:  Captain 
Wintour,  commander  of  the  Dove ;  Richard  Orchard,  Master 
of  the  Dove;  Samuel  Lawson,  mate;  John  Games,  gunner; 
Richard  Kenton,  boatswain;  John  Curke  and  Nicholas 
Parrie,  of  the  crew. 

There  are  two  accounts  of  the  voyage  of  the  ships  to  Mary- 
land. One  of  these  is  the  Relatio  Itineris  in  Marylandiam 
of  Father  White,  written  towards  the  end  of  April,  1634,  to 
the  General  of  the  Society  of  Jesus,  Mutius  Vitellesetis;  the 
other  is  entitled  A  Brief e  Relation  of  the  Voyage  unto  Mary- 
land authenticated  by  Leonard  Calvert  himself,  and  sent 
to  England  on  the' return  of  the  Ark.^ 

On  the  twenty-second  of  the  month  of  November, 
in  the  year  1633,  being  St.  Cecilia's  Day  (Friday),  we 
set  sail  from  Cowes,  in  the  Isle  of  Wight  .  .  .  after 
committing  the  principal  parts  of  the  ship  to  the 
protection  of  God  especially,  and  of  his  most  Holy 
Mother,  and  St.  Ignatius,  and  all  the  guardian  angels 
of  Maryland.^ 

The  voyagers  soon  encountered  stormy  weather  in  which 
the  Dove  was  driven  from  her  sister-ship  and  was  not  seen 
again  for  six  weeks,  the  crew  of  the  Ark  thinking  all  the  while 
that  '^shee  had  assuredly  beene  foundered  and  lost  in  those 
huge  seas.''  Sweeping  around  by  the  Barbadoes  and  other 
West  India  Islands,  the  two  vessels  which  had  joined  com- 
pany, ghded  peacefully  at  last  between  the  capes  into  the 
bay  which  Spanish  navigators  named  in  honor  of  the  Mother 


3  Russell,  Maryland  the  Land  of  Sanctuary,  p.  72;  also  Browne,  George  and 
Cecilius  Calvert,  p.  45. 
<  Pages  8-9. 

^  The  Calvert  Papers,  No.  iii,  pp.  26  et  seq. 
^  A  BHef  Relation,  p.  28. 


THE    SETTLEMENT   OF   MARYLAND  29 

of  God,  but  which  was  to  bear  the  Indian  name  of  Chesa- 
peake.^ 

Leonard  Calvert,  writing  to  Sir  Richard  Lechford,^  states 
that  they  arrived  in  Virginia  on  February  27,  where  they 
remained  for  eight  or  nine  days  to  land  some  passengers  and 
to  deUver  the  King's  letters  to  Governor  Harvey.  The 
Relation^  confesses  that  the  landing  was  ^'much  contrary'' 
to  the  Lord  Proprietary's  instructions.  The  reason  for  so 
doing  is  not  apparent  unless  it  be  that  they  had  some  presage 
that  the  attitude  of  the  Virginians  was  not  so  hostile  as 
anticipated  by  Cecilius  Calvert.  Harvey  received  them 
very  courteously  though  against  the  will  of  his  council. 
The  Relation  also  states  that  Captain  Claiborne  was  there 
from  whom  they  understood  that  the  Indians  were  prepared 
to  resist  the  colonists,  having  heard  that  six  Spanish  ships 
were  coming  to  destroy  them.  The  author  then  remarks 
that  'Hhe  rumour  was  most  like  to  have  begunne  from 
himselfe."  '' 

Calvert  now  proceeded  up  the  bay  to  the  territory  em- 
braced within  his  Charter.  Near  the  Island  of  St.  Clement 
they  came  to  anchor.  ^^On  the  day  of  the  Annunciation  of 
the  Most  Holy  Virgin  Mary  in  the  year  1634,"  writes 
Father  White,  '^we  celebrated  the  mass  for  the  first  time,  on 
this  island.  This  had  never  been  done  before  in  this  part  of 
the  world.  After  we  had  completed  the  sacrifice,  we  took 
upon  our  shoulders  a  great  cross,  which  we  had  hewn  out  of  a 
tree,  and  advancing  in  order  to  the  appointed  place,  with  the 
assistance  of  the  Governor  and  his  associates  and  the  other 
Cathohcs,  we  erected  a  trophy  to  Christ  the  Saviour,  humbly 
reciting  on  our  bended  knees,  the  Litanies  of  the  Sacred 
Cross,  with  great  emotion."  ^^    • 

With  what  fervor  Cornwaleys  and  his  associates  must 
have  assisted  at  the  celebration  of  the  holy  Sacrifice !    Many 

'  Shea,  History  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  United  Stales,  Vol.  i,  p.  41. 

*  Calvert  Papers,  No.  iii,  p.  20. 

»  A  BHef  Relation,  p.  38. 
"  Ibid. 

"  Relatio,  p.  33.  The  Litany  of  the  Holy  Cross  is  to  be  found  in  The 
Catholic  World,  Vol.  39,  p.  41. 


30  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

a  prayer  went  up  to  heaven  for  the  success  of  their  colonial 
project.  With  enthusiasm  they  erected  the  sign  of  salvation 
to  declare  to  the  bystanders  and  to  posterity  as  well,  in  this 
act,  that  Christ  was  to  reign  in  Maryland.  It  was  to  remain 
a  sign  of  good  will  towards  all.  Religious  toleration  was  to 
find  a  reahzation.  The  oppressed  in  conscience  were  here  to 
find  a  refuge.  Here  was  erected  the  first  altar  to  religious 
Hberty  on  this  continent;  and  the  fires  first  kindled  on  it 
ascended  to  heaven  amid  the  blessings  of  the  savage.  ^^ 

With  the  rehgious  rites  just  mentioned  began  the  acts 
of  the  settlers  in  their  own  land.  The  Governor's  next  step 
was  to  establish  friendly  relations  with  the  tribes  of  the 
locality.  Hearing  that  the  chief  of  Piscataway  had  a  sort  of 
suzerainty  over  the  other  Indians,  he  resolved  to  meet  him 
to  declare  to  him  the  objects  of  his  expedition.  Sailing  up 
the  Potomac  he  first  came  to  a  town,  where  a  werowance,  or 
king,  lived.  This  chief  was  but  a  child,  and  his  uncle  Archichu 
acted  as  regent.  Archichu  received  them  with  marks  of 
kindness,  and  at  their  departure  invited  them  to  visit  him 
again.^^ 

Leaving  these  hospitable  Indians,  Leonard  Calvert  pro- 
ceeded to  Piscataway,  the  seat  of  the  emperor,  where  five 
hundred  bowmen  came  to  meet  them  at  the  water  side.  The 
chieftain  came  on  board  the  ship,  where  he  was  kindly 
received.  Being  assured  of  the  friendly  intentions  of  the 
colonists,  he  gave  them  leave  to  settle  wherever  they 
pleased.  ^^  On  this  occasion,  Captain  Henry  Fleete,  an  Eng- 
lishman, who  lived  among  the  Indians  and  was  conversant 
with  their  language,  acted  as  Calvert's  interpreter.^^ 

The  Indians  gradually  lost  their  fear  and  awe  of  the 
colonists  once  they  were  convinced  of  their  friendly  attitude 


12  McMahon,  An  Historical  View  of  the  Government  of  Maryland,  p.  198. 

13  A  Brief  Relation,  p.  40. 
"  Ibid. 

15  Captain  Fleete  came  to  Virginia  at  an  early  age  in  life.  He  was  captured 
by  the  Indians  on  the  Potomac  in  1623;  remained  a  captive  until  1627,  during 
which  time  he  became  familiar  with  the  Indian  tongue.  Later  he  became  an 
interpreter,  trader  and  legislator  in  Maryland.  He  finally  settled  at  Fleet's 
Bay  in  Lancaster  County,  Virginia,  and  represented  the  County  in  the  House  of 
Burgesses,  1652.  The  date  of  his  death  is  not  recorded.  Cf.  Brown,  Genesis 
of  the  United  States,  Vol.  ii,  p.  892. 


THE    SETTLEMENT   OF   MARYLAND  31 

towards  them.  In  the  quaint  language  of  the  period,  the 
Relation  chronicles  that  'Hhe  Indians  began  to  lose  their 
feare  and  come  .  .  .  sometimes  aboard  our  shipp,  wonder- 
ing where  that  tree  should  grow,  out  of  which  so  great  a 
canow  should  be  hewen,  supposing  it  all  of  one  piece,  as 
their  canows  used  to  be,  they  trembled  to  heare  our  ordinance 
thinking  them  fearefuUer  then  any  thunder  they  had  ever 
heard/^i« 

Calvert,  not  finding  a  suitable  location  for  a  town,  decided, 
upon  his  return  to  St.  Clement's,  to  follow  Fleete's  advice 
and  drop  some  nine  leagues  further  down  the  Potomac  to 
look  for  a  site.  Fleete  was  a  very  capable  guide  owing  to  his 
knowledge  of  the  place  and  on  account  of  his  favor  with  the 
aborigines.  The  Governor  had  some  apprehensions  as  to 
Fleete's  attitude  toward  his  colonial  scheme,  consequently  he 
offered  him  a  portion  of  the  beaver  trade  in  order  to  win  his 
good- will.  Accepting  the  offer,  Fleete  led  Calvert's  party  to 
^^a  most  convenient  harbour,  and  pleasant  Countrey  lyinge 
on  each  side  of  it,  with  many  large  fields  of  excellent  land 
cleared  from  all  wood."  ^^  This  place  was  on  a  river  now 
known  as  the  St.  Mary's,  four  or  five  leagues  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Potomac,  and  was  known  as  the  town  of  Yoacomico. 

Calvert  was  greatly  pleased  with  the  place  and  resolved 
upon  an  interview  with  the  Indian  chief.  The  ''king  of 
Yoacomaco"  was  accordingly  offered  ''axes,  hoes,  cloth  and 
hatchets"  for  the  place.  Accepting  these,  it  was  agreed  that 
the  colonists  might  live  on  one  part  of  the  town,  the  Indians 
surrendering  to  them  their  houses  and  some  corn  which  they 
had  planted.  At  the  end  of  the  harvest  the  savages  were  to 
give  over  the  other  portion  of  the  village.  The  two  parties 
also  entered  into  a  treaty  to  live  together  in  peace  and 
harmony  as  long  as  they  were  neighbors.  ^^ 

Thirty  miles  of  ground  were  secured  from  the  Indians  at 
this  time,  and  the  high-sounding  name  of  Augusta  CaroUna 


i«  Page  41. 

"  Calvert  Papers,  No.  iii,  p.  21. 

"  A  Brief  Relation,  p.  41. 


32  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

was  given  to  it.  This  name  was  not  much  used  however,  and 
was  soon  superseded  by  the  name  of  St.  Mary's  County.  The 
town  itself  was  given  the  name  of  St.  Mary's.^^ 

After  the  landing  at  St.  Mary's  fortifications  were  soon 
erected  ^'sufficient  to  defend  against  any  such  weake  enemies 
as  we  have  reason  to  expect  here."  ^^  Streeter  is  of  the  opinion 
that  this  work  was  entrusted  to  Thomas  Cornwaleys,  the 
'^  Captain."  In  fact,  the  intrepidity  and  military  skill  of 
Cornwaleys  was  such  that  he  was  at  once  made  the  leader  of 
the  armed  forces  of  the  colony,  and  his  individuality  was  so 
distinctly  established  that,  though  there  were  others  in  the 
province  who  bore  the  same  mihtary  title,  it  was  only  in 
alluding  to  him  in  particular  that  the  title  'Hhe  Captain"  was 
used.21 

Mindful  of  CeciUus  Calvert's  Instructions  that  they 
received  before  their  departure  from  England,  a  ceremony 
was  arranged  in  which  the  Charter  was  read,  together  with 
the  Proprietary's  commission.  Then  was  also  announced  the 
intention  of  Calvert  in  founding  the  province,  the  conversion 
of  the  savages  to  Christianity,  to  extend  the  King's  domin- 
ions, and  to  do  all  that  can  be  done  for  the  good  of  those  who 
had  given  themselves  and  their  fortunes  to  the  project.  The 
colonists  also  pledged  their  allegiance  to  the  crown  on  this 
occasion.^2 

The  settlers  now  set  about  building  their  houses.  First 
in  order  was  the  building  of  a  suitable  abode  for  the  Governor. 
Father  White  was  not  content  to  wait  till  a  chapel  was  built, 
but  immediately  converted  an  Indian's  habitation  into  a 
chapel  which  he  dedicated  to  the  service  of  God  as  the  first 
chapel  in  Maryland.^^  The  planters  built  their  houses  close 
to  one  another,  on  regular  streets,  with  gardens  back  of 
them.  In  accordance  with  the  conditions  of  plantation 
which  provided  'Hhat  any  EngUshman  who  transported 


^'  Steiner,  Beginnings  of  Maryland,  p.  35. 

2"  Calvert  Papers,  No.  iii,  p.  21. 

2^  Streeter,  Papers  relating  to  the  Early  History  of  Maryland,  pp.  125-6. 

22  Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  p.  136. 

23  Relatio,  p.  39. 


THE  SETTLEMENT  OP  MARYLAND  33 

himself,  properly  equipped,  which  equipment  was  duly 
itemized  and  with  transportation  charges  estimated  at 
twenty  pounds,  should  receive  for  himself  in  freehold  estate 
one  hundred  acres,  with  the  same  amount  for  his  wife,  fifty 
acres  for  each  child  above  sixteen  years  of  age,  and  fifty 
acres  for  each  woman  servant  under  the  age  of  forty  years, 
paying  a  quit-rent  of  twelve  pence  in  the  commodities  of  the 
country  for  every  fifty  acres.  For  each  male  servant  be- 
tween the  ages  of  sixteen  and  fifty  years  so  transported,  one 
hundred  acres  should  be  given  on  like  conditions,  while  for 
every  five  men  transported,  the  adventurer  received  not  five 
hundred,  but  one  thousand  acres,  to  be  erected  into  a  manor 
with  all  the  privileges  of  the  English  ones/'  ^4 

In  the  meantime  the  colonists  lived  on  the  most  friendly 
terms  with  the  Indians.  They  hunted  together  and  enjoyed 
the  fruit  of  the  chase.  The  Indian  women  instructed  the 
wives  of  the  planters  in  the  methods  of  cooking  products  of 
the  soil  with  which  the  EngUsh  were  not  famiUar.  The 
Indians  cooperated  with  the  colonists  since  both  had  to  fear 
the  incursions  of  the  northern  tribes  who  were  not  so  well 
disposed  and  who  were  to  give  the  colonists  trouble  of  which 
we  shall  speak  in  a  later  chapter. 


2*  Steiner,  op.  ciL,  pp.  40-1. 


CHAPTER  V 

CORNWALEYS  AND   KeNT  IsLAND 

Affairs  in  the  infant  colony  seemed  to  have  reached  a  stage 
when  the  colonists  could  set  about  undisturbed  to  carry  out 
the  lofty  purposes  for  which  they  had  left  the  shores  of  their 
native  land.  They  were  free  from  Indian  hostilities  and, 
under  the  wise  leadership  of  Leonard  Calvert,  success  in  their 
colonial  enterprise  was  assured.  Serious  trouble,  however, 
was  to  arise  in  a  quarter  from  which  they  might  have  looked 
for  nothing  else  than  friendship  and  cooperation. 

The  animosity  of  the  Virginians  seemed  to  increase  as  the 
prosperity  of  the  Maryland  colony  became  more  assured. 
The  causes  of  Virginia's  irritation  were  three — they  were 
exasperated  that  the  Maryland  Charter  comprised  land  that 
had  once  been  included  in  their  own;  they  looked  with  dis- 
trust and  dislike  on  what  they  were  pleased  to  call  a  popish 
settlement;  and  they  were  aggrieved  that  the  Marylanders 
had  the  privilege  of  trade  in  foreign  markets,  which  they  did 
not  enjoy. ^ 

To  lodge  a  complaint  on  any  of  these  scores  seemed  futile 
to  them  at  the  time.  Should  they  be  able  to  find  a  flaw  in 
the  Charter  of  Lord  Baltimore,  they  thought  that  something 
might  be  done.  We  have  seen  how  they  registered  an 
objection  with  the  Privy  Council  against  the  Charter,  but 
with  no  success.  Despite  this  fact,  they  did  not  lose  heart. 
Claiborne's  claim  to  Kent  Island  was  to  become  the  bone  of 
contention.  As  Browne  remarks,  '^The  trivial  question 
whether  a  small  and  unprofitable  trading-post  should  be  held 
mediately  or  immediately  under  the  King,  served  as  the 
rallying-point  for  all  the  animosities  of  a  generation;  and  the 
territorial  quarrel  of  Virginia  and  Maryland,  the  religious 
quarrel  of  Puritan  and  CathoUc,  and  the  political  quarrel  of 
Royalist  and  Roundhead,  all  gathered  around  the  claim  of 
Claiborne."  2 


1  Browne,  Maryland  the  History  of  a  Palatinate,  p.  27. 

2  Ibid.,  p.  28. 

34 


CORNWALEYS   AND    KENT   ISLAND  35 

Claiborne  had  established  his  trading-post  on  Kent  Island 
in  the  Chesapeake,  but  did  not  receive  any  grant  of  land  or 
attempt  to  cultivate  the  soil.  The  undertaking  was  un- 
prosperous  and  a  quarrel  arose  between  him  and  Cloberry  & 
Company,  merchants  of  London,  who  financed  Claiborne's 
trading  venture,  each  casting  the  blame  on  the  other.  The 
Londoners  asked  Lord  Baltimore  for  a  grant  of  the  land, 
intending  to  oust  Claiborne.  Calvert  did  not  grant  this 
request  as  he  was  desirous  of  gaining  the  good  will  of  Clai- 
borne, if  possible,  to  make  a  friend  of  one  who  might  become 
a  valuable  member  of  his  infant  colony.^ 

Governor  Calvert  was  soon  to  find  out  that  Claiborne  was 
not  to  be  conciliated.  According  to  his  instruction,  the 
Governor  informed  Claiborne  'that  Kent  Island  was  in  Mary- 
land territory.  The  latter  (who  did  not  reside  on  the  Island 
but  in  Virginia)  rose  up  in  the  council  and  asked  what  he  was 
to  do.  The  assembly  informed  him  that  they  saw  no  reason 
why  the  island  should  be  given  up.  They  advised  him  to  do 
nothing  for  the  present  and  recommended  that  a  good  under- 
standing should  be  kept  up  with  the  Maryland  colonists. 
Governor  Harvey  tried  to  do  all  in  his  power  to  preserve 
friendly  relations  and  even  received  orders  to  this  effect  from 
the  King.  But  Harvey  could  do  little  since  a  majority  in 
council  were  ready  to  thwart  every  attempt  to  carry  out  these 
orders.'* 

On  the  4th  of  September,  1634,  Lord  Baltimore  directed  a 
set  of  new  instructions  ^Ho  his  brother,  Leonard  Calvert,  and 
others,  his  Lordship's  Commissioners  for  the  Government  of 
Mariland,"  of  which,  the  eighth  article  alone  is  extant.  It 
reads  as  follows: 

That  if  possibly  they  can,  without  notable  prejudice 
to  their  owne  CoUony,  for  want  of  sufficient  strength 
to  defend  themselves,  and  that  Capt.  William 
Claiborne,  at  the  arrivall  of  these  Instructions,  con- 
tinue his  unlawfull  courses  and  have  not  submitted 


'  Browne,  George  and  Cedlius  CcUvertf  p.  63, 
*  Ibid.,  p.  64. 


36  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

himself  unto  his  Lordship's  Patent,  they  seize  upon 
his  person  and  detaine  him  close  prisoner  at  St. 
Maries,  upon  that  accusation  against  him  in  Capt. 
Fleete's  examination,  and  that  other  they  have  since 
found  against  him;  for  which,  his  Lordship  con- 
ceiveth  by  his  former  behaviors  there  will  not  be 
wanting  cause  enough  on  his  parte.  That  they  like- 
wise take  possession  if  they  can,  of  his  Plantation, 
in  the  Isle  of  Kent,  till  upon  notice  given  thereof,  to 
his  Lordship,  they  have  further  directions  what  to 
do  with  him.^ 

Before  these  instructions  reached  the  colony,  the  Governor 
and  Commissioners  of  Maryland  lodged  a  complaint  with  the 
Governor  and  Council  of  Virginia  charging  Claiborne  ^^with 
evil  practises  with  the  Indians,  to  the  subversion  of  both 
colonies."  On  December  8th,  the  Commissioners  were 
prepared  to  substantiate  their  charges.  Their  witnesses 
being  examined  at  James  City,  the  findings  were  transmitted 
to  England.  Claiborne  could  not  be  dealt  with  according  to 
Baltimore's  instructions  owing  to  the  strong  sentiment  in  his 
favor  in  Virginia  and  that  same  colony's  opposition  to  Mary- 
land.« 

*^Good  correspondency"  between  the  two  colonies  of 
Maryland  and  Virginia  could  not  last  long  when  one  of  the 
parties  was  bent  on  making  trouble.  The  planters  of 
Baltimore's  palatinate  soon  found  that  the  Indians  were  not 
as  hospitable  and  friendly  as  was  their  wont.  The  cause  was 
laid  by  Fleete  at  Claiborne's  door.  He  accused  the  latter  of 
trjdng  to  persuade  the  Indians  that  the  Marylanders  were  not 
Englishmen  but  Spaniards  bent  upon  the  destruction  of  the 
English.  One  hesitates  to  believe  that  Claiborne  would  have 
instigated  the  Indians  against  men  of  his  own  race;  and  in 
justice  to  him  it  must  be  stated  that  when  the  Indians  were 
questioned  on  the  matter,  it  was  imputed  to  Fleete  that  he 
had  prevaricated.  The  affair  was,  however,  reported  to  Lord 
Baltimore.  Calvert  sent  out  instructions  that  Claiborne  was 
to  be  taken  prisoner  in  case  he  continued  hostilities,  and 
possession  was  to  be  taken  of  Kent  Island.^ 

^  Streeter,  Papers  relating  to  the  Early  History  of  Maryland,  p.  111. 

^  Ibid.,  pp.  in-2. 

'  Browne,  Maryland^  etc.,  p.  32. 


CORNWALEYS  AND   KENT  ISLAND  37 

Meanwhile  the  first  session  of  the  Assembly  of  Maryland 
was  held  on  February  26,  1635,  at  which  Thomas  Corn- 
waleys  was  no  doubt  present.  The  acts  of  this  Assembly 
with  the  exception  of  one  have  not  come  down  to  us.  But, 
either  as  a  result  of  action  taken  at  its  sessions  or  owing  to  the 
dehberation  of  the  Commissioners,  it  was  decided  to  have 
recourse  to  stringent  measures  to  stop  the  unUcensed  trading 
with  the  Indians  within  Maryland  territory  without  a  permit 
from  the  Governor. 

On  March  26,  1635,  Claiborne  sent  Thomas  Smith  in  the 
pinnace  Longtail  to  trade  for  corn  and  furs.  Smith  alleged 
that  he  had  letters  patent  from  the  King  for  Claiborne  to 
trade  in  the  colonies  of  America.  On  the  4th  of  April  he 
arrived  at  Mattapany,  on  the  Patuxent  River,  to  trade  in  the 
neighborhood  of  St.  Mary's.  The  next  day  he  was  met  by 
Capt.  Fleete  and  Capt.  Humber  who  demanded  his  hcense  to 
trade.  On  presenting  his  papers,  Fleete  examined  the  same 
and  said  that  they  did  not  permit  Claiborne  to  trade  further 
than  the  Isle  of  Kent.  Humber  asserted  that  the  permit  was 
false.  The  two  Captains  thereupon  took  Smith  and  brought 
him  to  St.  Mary's  before  Cornwaleys  who  was  acting  as 
deputy  in  the  absence  of  Leonard  Calvert.  When  Smith 
complained  that  his  ship  was  seized,  Cornwaleys  told  him 
that  Fleete  and  Humber  had  done  no  more  than  they  were 
ordered  to  do,  namely,  to  stop  all  vessels  they  should  find 
trading  in  the  Province.  Cornwaleys  further  stated  that 
Smith's  credentials  were  mere  forgeries  and  at  any  rate 
covered  merely  Kent  Island.  After  two  days,  Calvert 
returned  and  sent  for  Smith  and  his  party  at  Cornwaley's 
house.  The  Governor  decided  to  keep  the  vessel.  He 
refused  to  allow  the  men  to  return  to  Kent  Island  though  they 
might  go  to  Virginia  or  to  England.  Smith  refused  the 
permission  and  said  that  the  Kent  Islanders  were  in  need  of 
corn.  Calvert  answered  that  this  could  not  be.  After 
waiting  for  four  or  five  days  without  prospect  of  the  release 
of  the  pinnace.  Smith  asked  for  a  boat  with  which  to  return 
home.     This  request  was  denied  but  Calvert  allowed  him  to 


38  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

arrange  with  the  Indians  for  transportation  and  the  Islanders 
were  sent  away  with  only  one  gun,  the  property  of  Smith,  and 
without  victuals.^ 

To  retaliate  for  the  loss  of  the  Longtail,  Claiborne  im- 
mediately granted  a  warrant  to  Lieutenant  RatcUffe  Warren 
to  seize  and  capture  any  of  the  pinnaces  or  other  vessels 
belonging  to  the  government  of  St.  Mary's.  An  armed  boat 
was  fitted  out,  manned  with  about  thirty  men  from  Kent 
Island  under  Warren's  command.  When  Calvert  heard  of 
this,  he  equipped  two  vessels  and  sent  them  out  under  com- 
mand of  Captain  Thomas  Cornwaleys.  The  two  pinnaces 
were  known  as  the  St.  Margaret  and  the  St.  Helen.  Corn- 
waleys was  ordered  to  proceed  to  Kent  to  put  down  the  rising 
rebeUion.  During  a  cruise  in  the  bay  some  of  Claiborne's 
vessels  were  found  trading  without  hcense.  They  were 
accordingly  seized  as  lawful  prizes. 

On  the  23rd  of  April,  1635,  an  encounter  took  place 
between  Warren's  vessel,  the  Cockatrice  and  Cornwaleys' 
ships.  The  hostile  craft  met  in  the  Pocomoke  River.  Here 
was  fought  the  first  naval  battle  upon  the  inland  waters  of 
America.^  In  the  combat  that  followed,  both  sides  suffered 
the  loss  of  life.  The  casualty  list  comprises  the  following 
who  were  killed:  William  Ashmore,  of  Cornwaleys'  party; 
Lieutenant  Warren,  John  Belson,  William  Dawson  and  three 
others,  of  Claiborne's  company. ^^ 

In  the  Proceedings  of  the  Assembly,"  we  find  the  following 
account  of  this  event. 

then  was  the  house  moved  by  the  Attorney  to 
enquire  of  the  death  of  william  Ashmore,  Ratcliffe 
warren,  John  Bellson,  &  william  dawson,  and  the 
house  having  heard  the  evidence  of  Cyprian  Through- 
good,  John  nevill,  Cuthbert  ffenwich  &  Edward  ffleete 
did  find  that  the  said  Ratcliffe  warren,  John  Bellson, 
william  dawson  with  divers  others  did  assault  the 
vessells  of  Capt.  Thomas  Cornwaleys  &  his  company 
feloniously  and  as  pyrates  &  robbers  to  take  the  said 


*  Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  pp.  141  et  seq. 

•  Scharf,  History  of  Maryland,  Vol.  i,  p.  109. 
*®  Steiner,  Beginnings  of  Maryland,  p.  58. 

"  / — Archives  of  Maryland,  Assembly,  p.  17. 


CORNWALEYS   AND    KENT   ISLAND  39 

vessels;  and  did  discharge  divers  peices  charged  with 
bulletts  &  shott  against  the  said  Thomas  Corn- 
waleys  &  his  company;  wherevpon  &  after  such  as- 
sault made  the  said  Thomas  Cornwaleys  and  his 
company  in  defence  of  themselved  &  safegard  of  their 
lives  not  being  able  to  flie  further  from  them  after 
warning  given  to  the  assailants  to  desist  from 
assaulting  them  at  their  owne  perill,  did  discharge 
some  gunnes  vpon  the  said  Ratcliffe  warren  and  his 
company;  of  wch.  shotts  the  said  Ratcliff  warren 
John  Bellson,  and  william  dawson  died;  and  so  they 
find  that  the  said  Tho:  Cornwaleys  &  his  company 
did  lawfully  &  in  their  owne  necessary  defence  kill 
the  said  Ratcliff  warren  John  Bellson  and  william 
dawson;  and  doe  acquitt  the  said  Thomas  Corn- 
waleys &  his  company  of  the  death  of  the  said 
Ratcliff  warren  John  Bellson  and  william  dawson. 

and  they  further  find  that  the  said  Ratcliff  warren, 
and  his  company  did  discharge  their  gunnes  against 
the  said  Thomas  Cornwaleys  and  his  company  and 
did  kill  the  said  william  Ashmore  being  one  of  the 
company  of  the  said  Thomas  Cornwaleys;  as  felons 
pyrates,  and  murthers. 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  surviving  comrades  of  Warren 
were  taken  prisoners  by  Cornwaleys; — they  probably  re- 
turned with  their  wounded  and  dead  to  the  Island  of  Kent, 
while  he  and  his  party  continued  their  cruise  down  the  bay.^^ 

On  May  10,  the  Captain  encountered,  in  the  Great 
Wicomoco  River,  which  was,  in  fact,  within  the  boundaries  of 
Virginia,  another  boat  belonging  to  Kent  Island,  commanded 
by  Smith,  with  which  there  was  some  coUision,  though  no 
bloodshed  ensued.  After  this,  Cornwaleys'  expedition  re- 
turned to  St.  Mary's.13 

The  attempt  against  Kent  Island  on  the  part  of  Corn- 
waleys was  only  partially  successful.  Claiborne  succeeded 
in  obtaining  assistance  in  Virginia,  where  Harvey's  govern- 
ment had  been  superseded  by  another,  and,  though  much 
crippled  by  the  action  of  the  Marylanders,  by  his  personal 
influence  and  effort,  without  aid  from  his  partners  in  London, 
he  succeeded  for  nearly  three  years  in  maintaining  himself 

12  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  p.  129. 


40  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

upon  the  Island,  and  in  prosecuting  an  uncertain  traffic  with 
the  natives,  who  were,  in  general,  friendly  towards  him.^^ 

In  May,  1637,  a  letter  was  directed  by  the  King  to  the 
Commissioners  for  Foreign  Plantations  and  all  other  royal 
officers.  In  this  document  were  reviewed  the  grants  of 
Avalon,  in  Newfoundland,  and  Maryland  to  the  Lords 
Baltimore  and  the  transportation  of  colonies  to  each  province. 
Owing  to  the  danger  that  some  patents  may  be  issued  pre- 
judicial to  Lord  Baltimore's  patents,  Charles  I,  strictly 
orders  that  all  appUcations  for  grants  of  land  near  either 
province  be  delayed,  until  the  Proprietary  should  be  notified. 
The  King  also  announces  his  intention  not  to  issue  any  writ 
for  the  overthrow  of  either  the  Charters  of  Avalon  or  Mary- 
land.i-^ 

Late  in  the  year  1636,  Captain  George  Evelin  arrived  at 
Kent  Island  as  agent  and  commander  of  the  island.  Evehn 
soon  became  a  convert  to  the  justice  of  Lord  Baltimore's 
claims  in  regard  to  that  place.  The  favorable  disposition  of 
the  King,  the  complaisance  of  Evelin  and  the  determination 
of  the  Proprietary  to  press  matters  soon  determined  the 
Governor  to  take  decisive  steps  to  subdue  Kent  Island  and  to 
put  an  end  to  the  long-standing  trouble  that  disturbed  the 
peace  and  prosperity  of  his  colonial  domains. 

In  November  1637,  Governor  Calvert  wrote  a  letter  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Kent  Island  in  which  he  promised  a  general 
pardon  for  past  offenses  if  they  would  cease  their  opposition 
and  submit  to  his  government.  He  furthermore  told  them 
that  he  would  appoint  as  their  commander  any  one  whom 
they  would  choose  from  among  their  number.  Due  to  the 
influence  of  a  brother-in-law  of  Claiborne,  John  Butler,  and 
Thomas  Smith,  the  islanders  refused  the  offer.  Hereupon 
Calvert  appointed  EveUn.  Leonard  Calvert  now  took  twenty 
musketeers  from  St.  Mary's  under  conamand  of  Capt.  Corn- 
waleys.  They  intended  to  seize  Butler  and  Smith  and  bring 
the  rest  to  a  better  state  of  mind.     Owing  to  adverse 

"  Ibid.,  p.  131. 

15  /// — Archives  of  Maryland,  Council,  p.  55;  also  Steiner,  op.  cit.,  p.  71. 


CORNWALEYS   AND    KENT  ISLAND  41 

weather  conditions,  Calvert  was  forced  to  abandon  the 
expedition  after  remaining  out  a  week.^^  Cornwaleys  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  in  full  harmony  with  Calvert  on  this 
occasion.  This  conclusion  may  be  drawn  from  the  opening 
lines  of  a  letter  of  Cornwaleys  to  Cecihus  Calvert,  on  April 
16,  1638.     The  Captain  writes: 

I  receaued  yr.  Letr.  dated  the  25:  of  May  last  for 
wch.  and  yr  therein  nobly  proffered  favoures,  I  should 
before  this  time  haue  retourned  humble  thanks,  had 
I  not  hoped  in  person  toe  haue  kist  yr.  hands  this 
yeere  in  England.  But  yr.  Lops.  Service  and  the 
pretended  Good  of  Maryland,  would  not  permit  mee 
toe  provide  for  my  Journy,  nor  yet  toe  follow  my 
owne  affayres  when  my  best  diligence  had  beene 
most  vrgently.  needefuU  for  the  Accomodating  of 
them  toe  my  best  Advantage. ^^ 

In  virtue  of  a  commission  dated  December  30,  1637, 
directed  to  him  at  Kent  Island,  Captain  Evelin  was  appointed 
Commander  of  the  Island  and  its  inhabitants,  an  office  he 
held  before  from  Cloberry  &  Co.  He  was  constituted  with 
authority  to  choose  six  or  more  efficient  men  of  the  place  as 
his  counsel.  He  was  empowered  to  call  a  Court  as  often  as 
occasion  demanded  and  to  determine  any  civil  case  in  which 
not  more  than  ten  pounds  sterling  was  involved  in  damages 
or  demands,  criminal  cases  to  be  decided  to  the  extent  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  any  justice  of  the  peace  in  England,  not 
extending  to  life  and  member.  For  the  execution  of  justice 
and  the  conservation  of  the  peace,  he  could  appoint  all 
necessary  officers  who  were  to  receive  the  same  fee  as  the 
officers  of  the  same  standing  in  Virginia.  ^^ 

After  Evelin  had  received  this  commission,  he  came  to 
Kent  Island  in  company  with  Zachary  Mottershead  of  Mary- 
land, who  brought  with  him  the  Patent  of  Maryland  which 
was  to  be  read  to  them,  John  Butler  then  demanded  if 
EveUn  were  an  agent  for  Cloberry  &  Co.,  or  for  the  Mary- 
landers.     Evehn  answered  that  he  was  agent  for  both.     He 


"  CcUvert  Papers,  No.  i,  p.  182. 

"  Steiner,  op.  cit.,  p.  71  (note).    This  letter  is  to  be  found  in  Calvert  Papers^ 
No.  I,  p.  169. 

"  /// — Archives  of  Maryland,  p.  69. 


42  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

further  stated  that  he  himself  had  spoken  against  the  Mary- 
land Charter  and  held  Claiborne's  commission  ^'firm  and 
good  against  the  same,  and  that  the  Marylanders  had  nothing 
to  doe  with  the  He  of  Kent/'  He  also  declared  that  he  had 
seen  the  Patent  of  Lord  Baltimore  and  recognized  his  rights 
'Hhat  he  was  formerly  mistaken  and  overseene  as  he  per- 
ceived now  they  were,  but  he  himselfe  now  understood  it 
better."  ^^  He  then  told  them  that  it  was  better  to  Uve  under 
Lord  Baltimore's  government  and  enjoy  the  advantages  of 
trade  which  they  could  not  enjoy  under  Virginia.  Clai- 
borne's patent,  he  assured  them,  gave  him  license  to  trade  in 
Nova  Scotia  and  New  England  but  not  in  the  Chesapeake.^o 
The  same  day  that  Leonard*  Calvert  issued  his  commission 
to  EveUn,  Thomas  Cornwaleys  was  given  the  following 
hcense  to  trade: 

Know  all  persons  whom  it  concerneth,  that  I  have 
&  hereby  give  free  Liberty  and  License  to  Thomas 
Cornwallis  Esqr:  and  one  of  the  Council  of  this 
Province  to  trade  with  any  the  Indians  of  this 
Province  for  corne  or  Roanoke  or  peake,  and  the 
same  to  utter  and  Sell  to  any  of  the  Inhabitants  of 
this  Province,  and  no  further  or  otherwise,  this 
License  to  endure  until  I  shall  signifie  the  Contrary. 
In  Witness  whereof  I  have  hereunto  Set  my  hand  and 
Seal  this  30th  of  December  1637. 

Leonaed  Calvert.^^ 

On  February  17,  1637,  a  proclamation  was  issued  signed 
by  Leonard  Calvert,  Jerome  Hawley  and  John  Lewger  for  an 
expedition  to  the  Isle  of  Kent.  In  the  document  it  is  stated 
that  the  inhabitants  had  committed  many  piracies,  in- 
solences, mutinies  and  contempts  against  the  government. 
Warrants  were  issued  against  malefactors  which  were  dis- 
regarded. Even  prisoners  were  forcibly  rescued  from  the 
hands  of  the  law  by  the  people.    Worst  of  all,  they  were 


19  V— Archives  of  Maryland,  Council,  pp.  185,  203,  209,  218. 

20  Ibid.,  pp.  196,  203,  218.  Calvert's  commission  is  dated  in  the  month  of 
December.  The  Archives  state  that  this  event  took  place  in  November. 
Furthermore  the  commission  is  also  referred  to  as  having  been  given  in 
November.  Cf.  Letter  of  Leonard  Calvert  to  his  brother,  in  Calvert  Papers, 
No.  I,  p.  182. 

21  in — Archives,  p.  57. 


CORNWALEYS   AND   KENT   ISLAND  43 

conspiring  with  the  Indians  against  the  Marylanders.  It  was 
therefore  decided  that  the  Governor  sail  against  them  with  a 
sufficient  number  of  armed  men  under  the  leadership  of 
Captain  Cornwaleys  to  reduce  the  inhabitants  to  subjection 
by  martial  law  and  even  to  punish  the  offenders  by  death  if 
need  be.^^ 

A  letter  of  Leonard  Calvert  to  the  Proprietary  dated  April 
25,  1638,  describes  the  taking  of  Kent  Island.^^  He  states 
that  thirty  choice  musketeers  formed  the  miUtary  party. 
Smith  and  Boteler  were  taken  prisoner.  Calvert  then 
issued  a  proclamation  of  a  general  ananesty  for  all  the  in- 
habitants provided  they  submitted  to  the  Maryland  govern- 
ment within  twenty-four  hours.  This  the  prople  consented 
to  do.  Calvert  thereupon  assured  them  of  his  intention  to 
do  all  that  he  could  for  their  well-being,  provided  they 
deserved  such  treatment.  Whilst  at  the  Island,  the 
Governor  held  court  and  heard  divers  cases  between  the 
settlers.  At  the  end  of  its  session,  he  assembled  the  inhabi- 
tants to  make  choice  of  their  delegates  to  the  Assembly 
which  was  to  be  held  at  St.  Mary's  for  the  making  of  laws- 
Before  Calvert  departed  he  told  the  islanders  that  any  man 
that  held  or  wished  to  acquire  land  should  take  out  a  patent 
for  the  same  under  the  seal  of  the  Province.  He  promised 
to  come  the  next  summer  with  Mr.  Lewger  who  was  to 
survey  the  land  and  give  them  the  grants  reserving  only  such 
rents  and  services  to  the  Proprietary  as  the  law  of  the 
province  should  appoint. 

At  a  session  of  the  Assembly  on  March  14,  1637,  an  Act 
of  Attainder  against  WilUam  Claiborne  was  introduced. 
The  bill  for  the  same  was  read  a  second  time  on  the  follow- 
ing day,  and  on  March  16  [the  bill]  was  passed.^^  As  a 
result,  all  the  property  of  Claiborne  within  the  Province 
became  forfeited  to  the  Lord  Proprietor.^^ 

On  March  14,  1637,  began  the  trial  of  Thomas  Smith.  He 
was  indicted  on  a  charge  of  piracy.    After  hearing  the  evi- 

22  Ibid.,  p.  64. 

23  Calvert  Papers,  No.  I,  pp.  182  et  seq. 
2*  I— Archives,  pp.  16,  18,  21. 

2*  Bozman,  History  of  Maryland,  Vol.  ii,  p.  64. 


44  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

dence  in  the  case,  he  was  found  guilty.  The  President  then 
pronounced  sentence  in  the  name  of  all  the  freemen.  It 
read: 

Thomas  Smith  you  have  been  indicted  of  felony 
and  pyracie,  to  your  indictmt.  you  have  pleaded  not 
guilty,  and  you  have  beene  tried  by  the  ffreemen  in 
this  general!  Assembly,  who  have  found  you  guilty, 
and  pronounce  this  sentence  upon  you,  that  you 
shall  be  carried  from  hence  to  the  place  from  whence 
you  came,  and  thence  to  the  place  of  exequution,  and 
shalbe  there  hanged  by  the  neck  till  you  be  dead;  and 
that  all  your  lands  goods  &  chattels  shalbe  forfeited 
to  the  Lord  Proprietr.,  saving  that  your  wife  shall 
have  her  dower.  And  so  God  have  mercy  vpon  your 
soule.^^ 

Then  the  prisoner  demanded  his  clergy.  Since  the  assist- 
ance of  ministers  of  religion  to  attend  the  condemned  was 
denied  in  certain  crimes,  the  President  answered  that  this 
could  not  be  allowed  in  this  case,  and  if  it  might,  yet  it  was 
now  too  late  after  judgment.^^  Since  no  record  appears  after 
this  transaction  in  regard  to  Smith,  it  is  not  certain  what  his 
final  fate  was  though  it  is  probable  that  he  was  executed  in 
accordance  with  the  sentence.^^  With  regard  to  Boteler,  he 
was  not  tried,  as  Calvert  hoped,  by  showing  him  favor,  to 
win  him  and  to  make  of  him,  if  possible,  a  good  member  of 
his  colony  and,  if  his  good  disposition  toward  the  Proprietary 
warranted  it,  to  give  him  the  conunand  of  the  Isle  of  Kent.^^ 
Boteler  seems  to  have  come  up  to  the  expectations  of  Calvert 
as  he  was  later  appointed  to  the  command  of  the  militia  of 
the  Island.  This  confidence  was  not  misplaced.  He  remained 
faithful  to  the  government,  and  held  various  offices  of  trust 
in  the  province  until  his  death  in  1642.^° 

The  Kent  islanders,  who  were  a  peaceful  folk,  accepted  the 
situation  very  cheerfully,  had  their  lands,  to  which  they  had 
as  yet  no  title,  confirmed  to  them,  and  in  all  ways  deported 
themselves  as  good  citizens.^^ 

*«  I — Archives,  pp.  16  and  17. 

27  Ibid.,  p.  17. 

28  Bozman,  op.  cit.,  p.  65  (note). 

29  Calverl  Papers,  No.  i,  p.  186. 

30  Browne,  G.  and  C.  Calvert,  p.  82. 
»i  Ibid. 


CHAPTER  VI 

CORNWALEYS   AS   LEGISLATOR 

From  the  events  related  in  the  preceding  chapter  in  which 
Captain  Cornwaleys  played  so  conspicuous  a  part,  one  is  led 
to  believe  that  his  services  to  the  Maryland  colony  were 
chiefly  of  a  mihtary  nature.  Were  the  records  of  those  early 
days  still  in  existence,  they  would,  no  doubt,  tell  us  many 
interesting  facts  relating  to  Cornwaleys'  career  as  a  Com- 
missioner. In  this  capacity,  he  must  often  have  been  called 
upon  to  aid  and  counsel  Governor  Calvert  in  his  projects 
for  the  prosperity  of  the  Palatinate.  Cornwaleys'  whole- 
hearted zeal  for  the  welfare  of  the  colonists  that  was  brought 
into  play  in  subsequent  days,  must  surely  have  been  in 
evidence  in  the  first  years  of  Maryland  when  the  services  of 
just  such  a  man  were  so  valuable  and  indispensable. 

Cornwaleys'  expedition  to  Kent  Island  was  the  last  pubhc 
service  performed  by  him  in  his  capacity  of  Commissioner. 
Before  the  opening  of  the  General  Assembly  of  1638,  a  new 
commission  was  brought  by  Secretary  Lewger.  Captain 
Cornwaleys  was  retained  as  an  adviser  of  the  executive,  but 
under  the  title  of  Councillor,  in  conjunction  with  Hawley  and 
Lewger.^ 

The  General  Assembly  of  1638  is  the  first  of  which  we  have 
any  record.  However,  this  was  not  the  first  Assembly  held. 
An  Assembly  was  held  on  February  26,  1635,  just  eleven 
months  after  the  colonists  had  taken  possession  of  their  new 
territory.  Its  proceedings  would  without  doubt  form  a  most 
interesting  chapter  in  the  early  annals  of  Maryland,  but 
unfortunately  no  account  remains  to  tell  the  story.  The 
very  fact  of  its  being  held  would  have  been  lost  to  us  had  it 
not  been  for  a  casual  reference  to  one  of  its  acts  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Assembly  held  on  March  24,  1637:  ''whereas 
by  an  Act  of  General  Assembhe  held  at  St  Maries  on  the  six 
and  twentieth  day  of  Febry  1634  among  other  wholesome 

^  Bozman,  History  of  Maryland,  Vol.  ii,  p.  46. 

45 


46  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

lawes  and  ordinances  then  made  and  provided  for  the  welfare 
of  this  Province,  it  was  enacted,  that  the  Offenders  in  all 
murthers  and  felonies  should  suffer  such  paines,  losses  and 
forfeitures  as  they  should  or  ought  to  have  suffered  in  the  hke 
crimes  in  England.'^  ^ 

The  Second  General  Assembly  of  Maryland  was  held  at  St. 
Mary's  and  opened  on  the  25th  of  January,  1637.  The  free- 
men of  the  Province  had  received  due  notice  to  repair  to  the 
Assembly,  either  personally  or  through  their  representatives. 
According  to  Streeter,^  some  attempts  at  civil  division  had 
already  been  made  in  the  colony.  All  the  settlements  were 
regarded  as  forming  the  County  of  St.  Mary's;  and  different 
localities,  as  they  became  sufficiently  populous,  were  desig- 
nated hundreds.  St.  Mary's  Hundred  included  the  dwellings 
and  plantations  within  the  vicinity  of  the  town  of  that  name; 
St.  George's  Hundred,  embraced  the  settlers  that  resided  on 
the  west  bank  of  the  river  of  the  same  name;  Mattapanient 
was  the  name  of  a  settlement,  not  yet  numerous,  on  the 
Patuxent  River,  and  not  yet  dignified  by  the  designation  of  a 
Hundred.     Kent  Island  was  also  represented.^ 

There  does  not  seem  to  have  been  any  inclination  on  the 
part  of  the  people  to  delegate  any  one  individual  to  act  for 
them  through  a  pubhc  election,  but  many  of  the  freemen, 
not  finding  it  convenient  to  attend,  gave  a  proxy  to  some 
member  to  act  for  them,  so  that  one  person  in  fact  represented 
a  considerable  number  of  freemen,  and  the  result  was  the 
same  as  though  all  in  whose  name  he  acted  had  united  to 
choose  him  their  burgess.^  ^'During  the  sessions  of  this 
Assembly,"  says  Steiner,^  ^'sixty-four  different  persons  were 
present  and  twenty-six  more  freemen  are  mentioned,  who 
did  not  appear."  The  sessions  were  presided  over  by 
Leonard  Calvert,  who  is  designated  as  ''The  Lieutenant 
General"  or  as  "The  President."     The  name  of  Captain 


2  / — Archives  of  Maryland,  Assembly,  p.  23. 

3  Streeter,  Papers  relating  to  the  Early  History  of  Maryland,  pp.  10-11. 
*Ibid. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  IS. 

*  Steiner,  Beginnings  of  Maryland,  p.  76. 


CORNWALEYS   AS    LEGISLATOR  47 

Thomas  Cornwaleys  usually  appears  in  the  records  of  the 
proceedings  immediately  after  that  of  the  President. 

After  the  members  had  assembled  on  the  first  day,  certain 
orders  were  established  by  general  consent  to  be  observed 
during  the  sessions  of  the  Assembly.  These  orders  were  as 
follows : 

Imprmis,  the  Lieutent  Grail  as  President  of  the 
Assembly,  shall  appoint  and  direct  all  things  that 
concerne  forme  and  decency  to  be  observed  in  the 
same;  and  shall  command  the  observance  thereof  as 
he  shall  see  cause  upon  paine  of  imprisonmt  or  fine 
as  the  house  shall  adjudge. 

Item  every  one  that  is  to  speak  to  any  matter, 
shall  stand  up,  and  be  uncovered  and  direct  his 
speech  to  the  Lieutenant  Generall  as  President  of  the 
Assembly.  And  if  two  or  more  stand  up  to  speake 
together,  the  Lieutent  Grail  shall  appoint  which  shall 
speak. 

Item  no  man  shall  stand  up  to  speak  to  any  matter 
until  the  partie  that  spake  last  before,  have  sate 
downe,  nor  shall  any  one  speake  above  once  to  one 
bill  or  matter  at  one  reading  nor  shall  refute  the 
speech  of  any  other  with  any  uncivil  or  contentious 
termes,  nor  shall  name  him  but  by  some  circumlo- 
quution.  And  if  any  one  offend  to  the  contrary,  the 
Lieutenant  Generall  shall  command  him  to  silence. 

Item  the  house  shall  sitt  every  day  at  eight  of  the 
clock  in  the  morning,  and  at  two  of  the  clock  in  the 
afternoone. 

Item  the  freemen  assembled  at  any  time  to  any 
number  above  ten  persons,  at  the  houres  aforesaid, 
or  within  one  houre  after,  shalbe  a  house  to  all 
purposes. 

Item  every  one  propounding  any  matter  to  the 
house  shall  digest  it  first  into  writing  and  deliver  it 
to  the  Secretary  to  be  read  unto  the  house 

And  it  was  ordered  by  the  house  that  these  Orders 
should  be  sett  up  in  some  publique  place  of  the  house, 
to  the  end  all  men  might  take  notice  of  them.^ 

During  the  course  of  this  session  of  the  Assembly  Corn- 
waleys appeared  as  proxy  for  various  members  holding  the 
right  to  vote  in  their  stead.  On  the  first  day,  he  held  one; 
during  the  remainder  of  the  sittings  he  held  twelve  others, 

'  / — Archives,  pp.  4-5. 


48  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

besides  two,  which  were  offered  to  him  on  one  occasion,  but 
which,  by  a  vote  of  the  house,  he  was  not  allowed  to  accept.^ 

On  the  second  day  it  was  ordered  that  any  member  of  the 
house  who  did  not  put  in  an  appearance  at  the  appointed 
time  should  be  amerced  twenty  pounds  of  tobacco  for  every 
offense.  Twelve  of  the  first  Acts  of  the  draught  of  laws 
transmitted  by  the  Proprietary  were  read  and  debated.  In 
the  afternoon  session  the  debate  continued.^  The  Assembly 
then  adjourned  till  January  29th. 

The  third  day  of  the  Assembly  is  worthy  of  particular 
attention.  It  was  the  first  occasion  on  which  we  find  Corn- 
waleys  voicing  his  opinion.  The  question  under  discussion 
regarded  the  ^^  Privilege  of  ParHament^'  which  exempted  the 
legislators  from  arrest  during  the  Assembly  and  it  was 
mooted  whether  freemen  having  made  proxies  during  the 
Assembly  could  be  apprehended  before  the  dissolution  of  the 
same.  Cornwaleys  maintained  that  by  delegating  their  vote 
to  another,  they  deprived  themselves  of  this  right  to  exemp- 
tion. Cornwaleys'  object  was  to  curtail  the  extent  of  official 
privilege.  But  the  majority  of  the  members  held  that  no 
man  who  had  a  right  to  sit  in  the  Assembly  could  be  arrested 
until,  after  the  close  of  its  sessions,  he  had  sufficient  time  to 
travel  to  his  place  of  residence. ^° 

Then  the  question  arose  whether  the  body  of  laws  sent 
over  by  Cecilius  Calvert  for  their  acceptance,  and  which  were 
read  and  discussed  the  day  previous,  should  be  read  again,  or 
at  once  put  to  the  vote.  The  Captain  was  of  the  opinion 
^'that  they  should  expect  a  more  frequent  house,"  while 
Captain  Fleete  advocated  reading  them  again;  but  the 
majority,  including  Calvert  and  Lewger,  favored  imme- 
diate action.  However,  when  the  question  actually  arose 
whether  the  laws  should  be  accepted  or  rejected,  it  was  found 
that  Calvert  and  Lewger  who  controlled  fourteen  ^'voices" 
were  on  the  affirmative  side,  while  the  remainder,  holding 
thirty-seven  votes,  were  on  the  negative. 

Then  the  discussion  arose  as  to  what  laws  should  govern 


*  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  p.  133. 
'  / — Archives,  pp.  6-7. 
io/6td.,  p.  8. 


CORNWALEYS   AS    LEGISLATOR  49 

the  Province.  Some  held  that  certain  temporary  enact- 
ments should  be  made  to  hold  until  they  heard  again  from 
England.  Then  the  President  emphatically  denied  any  power 
to  the  house  to  originate  any  laws.  Cornwaleys  suggested 
the  laws  of  England,  to  which  the  Governor  replied,  that  his 
commission  gave  him  power  to  act  in  civil  cases  by  the  laws 
of  England,  in  criminal  cases  also  ''not  extending  to  life  or 
member."  In  the  latter,  he  was  limited  to  the  laws  of  the 
Province  which  gave  him  no  power  to  inflict  punishment  **on 
any  enormous  offenders."  However,  the  suggestion  was 
offered  that  since  offenses  calhng  for  such  punishment  could 
hardly  be  committed  without  mutiny,  the  offenders  could  be 
punished  by  process  of  martial  law.  This  suggestion  seems 
to  have  settled  the  difficulty  for  the  time  as  the  discussion 
then  ended. ^^ 

During  the  afternoon  session  of  the  same  day,  January 
29th,  a  proposition  was  laid  before  the  House  to  consider  laws 
to  be  sent  to  the  Proprietary.  Leonard  Calvert  advised 
that  a  committee  should  be  selected  to  prepare  a  draft  and 
report  to  the  House  when  they  were  ready,  the  members  in 
the  interim  to  have  time  to  attend  to  their  private  concerns. 
The  proposal  was  favorably  received  and  a  committee  of  five 
was  chosen  out  of  a  candidature  of  ten  members.  It  is 
worthy  of  note  as  it  gives  evidence  of  the  high  esteem  in  which 
Captain  Cornwaleys  was  held  in  the  House,  that  he  received 
fifty-four  votes — the  highest  number  cast  for  any  of  the 
successful  candidates.  Captain  EveUn  received  forty- 
eight;  Captain  Wintour,  forty-five;  Governor  Calvert,  thirty- 
eight;  and  Mr.  Justinian  Snow,  thirty-one.^^  The  House  then 
voted  to  adjourn,  to  meet  again  on  the  8th  of  February.  As 
the  Court  was  to  meet  in  the  interval,  the  Privilege  of 
Parliament  was  suspended  so  that  there  might  be  no  ob- 
struction to  the  course  of  justice. 

When  the  Assembly  reconvened,  the  committee  reported 
that  the  laws  prepared  by  the  proprietor  should  be  again 
propounded  since  there  appeared  to  be  a  general  misunder- 
standing among  the  freemen  regarding  their  import.     The 


"  Ibid.,  p.  9. 
"  Ibid.,  p.  10. 


50  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

House  agreed  to  the  decision,  first  adopting  an  order  that  all 
bills  brought  up  should  be  read  three  times  on  as  many 
different  days  before  being  voted  upon.  Then  the  draft  of 
laws  was  read  through  the  second  time  as  well  as  twenty 
bills  proposed  by  the  committee,  which  were  read  the  first 
time.  Cornwaleys  then  asked  that  it  be  put  to  vote  whether 
these  laws  at  the  third  reading  should  be  voted  upon  singly 
or  the  whole  body  together.  It  was  decided  by  a  vote  of 
thirty-seven  to  thirty-two  in  favor  of  voting  upon  them 
separately.  ^^  This  vote  seems  to  have  disposed  of  his  Lord- 
ship's code,  for  no  attempt  appears  to  have  been  made  to 
bring  it  to  a  third  reading. ^^ 

In  the  afternoon,  when  the  members  had  assembled,  the 
President  announced  that  he  thought  fit  to  adjourn  the 
Assembly  again,  for  a  longer  time,  till  the  laws  which  they 
would  propound  to  the  Lord  Proprietary  were  ready,  which 
some  of  the  members  could  take  care  of,  while  the  others 
would  have  leisure  to  attend  to  their  own  concerns. 

Cornwaleys  immediately  made  answer  that  they  could  not 
spend  their  time  in  any  business  better  than  in  that  which 
concerned  the  good  of  the  colony.  Another  member  de- 
manded to  know  the  reason  for  the  adjournment  and  declared 
that  the  members  were  willing  to  leave  their  various  occupa- 
tions to  attend  to  public  business.  Governor  Calvert  then 
rephed  that  he  was  accountable  to  no  one  for  his  resolution  to 
adjourn  the  session. 

Then  Thomas  Cornwaleys  made  a  motion  that  at  least  a 
committee  should  be  appointed  to  take  charge  of  the  prepa- 
ration of  the  laws,  till  the  House  met  again.  To  this,  the 
body  agreed  and  fixed  upon  a  committee  of  three.  Six 
candidates  were  proposed.  The  result  of  the  choice  of  the 
members  showed  that  Captain  Cornwaleys  received  fifty-six 
votes;  Governor  Calvert,  forty-six;  and  Captain  Evehn, 
forty-four.  After  this  action,  the  President  adjourned  the 
House  till  February  26th,  after  the  privilege  of  parliament 
was  again  revoked. 


^^  Ibid.,  p.  11. 

14  Streeter,  op.  dt.,  p.  137. 


CORNWALEYS  AS   LEGISLATOR  61 

Governor  Calvert's  decision  to  adjourn  the  Assembly  on 
this  occasion  without  assigning  any  reason  seemed  rather 
abrupt  and  ill-timed.  But  the  Governor  had  excellent 
reasons  that  prompted  him  to  take  such  action.  The  state 
of  things  in  Kent  Island  at  the  time  demanded  his  presence 
there  to  settle  matters.  He  deemed  it  wise  to  keep  his 
intention  secret  to  assure  the  better  success  of  his  expedition, 
the  account  of  which  has  been  related  in  the  preceding 
chapter. 

In  the  absence  of  Leonard  Calvert,  the  Assembly  had  been 
convened  on  schedule  by  Secretary  Lewger,  acting  for  the 
Governor.  But  it  merely  met  to  adjourn  to  meet  again  on 
March  5th.  Owing  to  the  Governor's  beijig  still  absent, 
adjournment  was  ordered  till  the  12th  of  March.  On  that 
day,  the  President  again  occupied  the  chair.  Cornwaleys 
was  also  at  his  post  of  duty  as  the  faithful  aid  and  counsellor 
of  the  Governor. 

The  main  business  of  this  session  of  the  Assembly  was 
rapidly  pushed  forward.  Various  measures  were  brought 
before  the  legislative  body  and  passed.  Among  them  might 
be  mentioned  in  particular  an  act  ''for  capitall  felonies,'' 
from  one  part  of  which  Cornwaleys  dissented;  the  other,  an 
act  ''for  support  of  the  Lord  Proprietor"  was  passed  but 
"denied  by  the  Captain  and  three  others."  ^^ 

On  March  24th,  the  last  day  of  the  civil  year  according  to 
reckoning  in  use  at  the  time,  the  members  assembled.  "The 
laws  as  they  were  faire  ingrossed  were  read  in  the  house." 
This  procedure  consumed  the  time  of  the  morning  and  after- 
noon sessions.  After  the  laws  had  been  read  they  were 
signed  by  the  Governor  and  the  rest  of  the  House.  The 
Assembly  came  to  a  close  with  this  meeting. ^^ 

The  year  1638  proved,  in  many  particulars,  one  of  great 
trial  for  the  Maryland  colonists.  Not  the  least  of  these  was 
the  prevalence  of  disease  which  raged  in  tho  Province  around 
that  time.^^     During  the  course  of  the  epidemic,  the  mis- 


"  / — Archives,  p.  22. 

i«  lUd.,  p.  23. 

"  Streeter,  op.  dt.,  p.  146. 


52  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

sionaries,  of  whom  there  were  four,  all  of  the  Society  of 
Jesus,  worked  indefatigably  to  bring  to  the  stricken  the 
consolations  of  religion.  Among  those  who  died  during 
the  scourge,  were  Jerome  Hawley,  the  friend  and  fellow- 
Councillor  of  Cornwaleys,  of  whom  we  shall  speak  later; 
Father  Knowles  and  Brother  Gervase  of  the  Society  of 
Jesus.  ^^ 

During  this  eventful  year,  Cornwaleys^  abiHty  and  faith- 
fulness to  duty  were  eminently  proven  in  the  varied  offices 
he  was  called  upon  to  perform  for  the  good  of  the  Province. 
The  confidence  of  the  Proprietor  in  appointing  him  adviser 
to  his  brother  was  not  misplaced.  The  rehance  of  the  people 
on  his  integrity  and  business  tact  was  manifested  in  his 
selection  on  numerous  occasions  for  arbitrations  and  the 
settlement  of  estates.  The  estates  administered  by  the 
Captain  were  those  of  John  Saunders,  ^^  Jerome  Hawley  ^^ 
and  Thomas  CuUamore.^^  The  Governor's  appreciation  of 
Cornwaleys'  miUtary  skill  was  evidenced  by  requiring  his 
services  in  the  expedition  to  Kent  Island.  The  confidence 
of  Calvert  was  shown  in  the  Captain's  administrative  ability 
when  he  was  appointed  on  May  27,  1638,  Deputy  Governor 
of  the  Province  during  Calvert's  absence  in  Virginia.^^  ^'As 
a  legislator,"  says  Streeter,  ^'he  had  proved  his  firmness,  and 
his  single  purpose  to  act  only  for  the  pubfic  good,  in  the 
course  of  the  session  (of  the  Assembly)  which  ended  in 
March;  and  his  impartiahty  and  superiority  to  mere  reUgious 
prejudices  were  admirably  displayed  in  his  investigations  into 
the  case  of  the  Protestant  servants  of  William  Lewis,  in 
July  of  the  same  year."  ^^ 

The  result  of  the  trial  here  referred  to  was  this.  Two 
Protestant  servants  of  William  Lewis  were  accused  by  him 
before  Cornwaleys  of  having  drawn  up  a  paper  to  band  the 


1*  Cf .  Hughes,  The  History  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  in  North  America,  Vol.  i, 
p.  109,  Documents ;  Vol.  i,  p.  336,  Text;  Foley,  Records  of  the  English  Province  of 
the  Society  of  Jesu^,  Vol.  iii,  pp.  367-8;  Streeter,  op.  dt.,  p.  146. 

19  7 F — Archives  of  Maryland,  Court,  p.  14. 

20  The  administration  of  Hawley's  estate  will  be  dealt  with  in  the  chapter  on 
Hawley  and  Cornwaleys. 

21 IV— Archives,  pp.  39,  74  et  seq.,  and  102. 

22  III — Archives  of  Maryland^  Council,  p.  74. 

23  Streeter,  op.  dt.,  p.  147. 


CORNWALEYS   AS    LEGISLATOR  53 

Protestants  together  for  the  purpose  of  petitioning  Governor 
Harvey  and  the  Council  of  Virginia,  to  send  to  St.  Mary's, 
and  demand  the  surrender  of  Lewis  to  be  proceeded  against 
as  a  traitor  to  England,  on  the  charge  of  having  spoken 
disrespectfully  of  the  clergy  of  the  EstabUshed  Church,  and 
that  he  had  forbidden  his  servants  to  read  the  authorized 
pubUcations  of  divines  of  the  §ame  Church.  The  Captain 
took  up  the  affair  at  once  and  the  subsequent  proceedings  of 
the  case  proved  that  the  Protestants  could  get  redress  in 
Maryland  without  having  recourse  to  any  tribunal  beyond 
her  confines. 

When  Cornwaleys  had  heard  this  part  of  the  story,  he 
sent  for  Secretary  Lewger,  and  called  in  Robert  Sedgrave 
and  Francis  Gray,  the  parties  principally  compromised  in 
Lewis'  charge.  Sedgrave  admitted  that  he  had  a  paper 
which  he  had  prepared  and  given  to  Gray  who,  even  then, 
had  it  with  him.  This  was  turned  over  to  Captain  Corn- 
waleys. The  document  was  an  appeal  to  persons  not  named, 
accusing  Lewis  of  reproaches  against  the  ministers  of  their 
reUgion,  of  forbidding  his  servants  to  read  any  book  relative 
to  their  religion  and  of  trying  to  win  over  ignorant  persons 
by  craft  to  the  CathoUc  reUgion.  They  therefore  besought 
those  who  had  the  power  to  stop  these  abuses  on  the  part  of 
Lewis.  It  was  found  that  the  object  of  the  paper  was  to 
induce  some  of  the  freemen  to  petition  the  Governor  and 
Council  for  redress  of  their  grievances. 

On  Tuesday,  July  3,  1638,  the  parties  concerned  with  their 
witnesses,  were  sunmioned  before  Governor  Calvert,  Captain 
Cornwaleys  and  Secretary  Lewger,  sitting  as  a  Court. 
Sedgrave  admitted  that  he  had  drawn  up  the  paper  and 
given  it  to  Gray.  Thy  were  on  their  way  to  the  chapel  on 
the  preceding  Sunday  when  Cornwaleys  called  them  and 
interrogated  them  on  the  matter.  Gray  admitted  his  intent 
of  giving  it  to  certain  freemen  for  presentation  to  the 
Governor. 

Examination  of  the  witnesses  proved  that  the  two  servants 
had  been  reading  a  book  in  which  the  Pope  was  termed  anti- 
Christ,  and  the  Jesuits,  anti-Christian  ministers.  Lewis  had 
come  upon  them  whilst  thus  engaged.     Irritated  at  these 


54  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

harsh  words,  Lewis  retorted  that  the  accusations  were  false, 
that  the  Protestant  clergymen  were  ministers  of  the  devil, 
and  that  he  would  not  have  that  book  read  in  his  house. 
Lewis  offered  to  prove  that  the  purpose  of  the  paper  was  to 
combine  the  Protestants  and  to  petition  Harvey  for  aid,  but, 
not  being  able  to  prove  his  contention  since  his  witness  was 
absent  on  a  trading  expedition,  the  Governor  deferred  the 
trial  of  Sedgrave  and  his  associates  on  that  charge  till  the 
witness  could  be  produced  in  Court,^^  and  thereupon  called 
upon  the  Secretary  to  give  his  opinion  in  the  case. 

Lewger  pronounced  the  accused  guilty  of  an  offensive 
and  indiscreet  speech  in  caUing  the  author  of  the  book  in 
question  a  minister  of  satan;  of  very  offensive  speech  in 
calling  Protestant  clergymen  the  ministers  of  the  devil;  and 
to  have  gone  to  excess  in  forbidding  what  was  allowed  to  be 
read  by  the  State  of  England,  but  he  acquitted  him  of  the 
accusation  to  have  or  use  Protestant  books  in  his  house. 
Since  these  offensive  speeches  and  his  other  unseasonable 
disputations  on  religious  topics  tended  to  the  disturbance  of 
the  public  peace  and  were  in  violation  of  a  public  procla- 
mation put  forth  to  prohibit  such  disputes,  he  sentenced 
Lewis  to  pay  a  fine  of  five  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco  to  the 
Proprietary,  and  to  remain  in  the  sheriff's  custody  until  he 
foimd  security  for  his  good  behaviour  in  these  matters  for  the 
future.  The  Captain  concurred  substantially '  with  this 
opinion  and  the  Governor  entirely.  Thereupon  the  security 
was  given.2^  ' 

The  incident  of  the  trial  of  William  Lewis  and  its  outcome 
is  indeed  very  insignificant  in  itself,  nevertheless  it  shows  that 
liberty  of  conscience  in  the  colony  of  Maryland  was  not  a 
dead  letter  in  the  legislation  of  the  Province.  When  the  law 
W9S  enacted  forbidding  religious  disputes  cannot  be  definitely 
stated.  Browne  is  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  enacted  in  the 
First  Assembly,  the  records  of  which,  as  stated  before,  have 
been  lost.^^ 


^  Whether  the  trial  of  Sedgrave  and  his  associates  ever  took  place  cannot  be 
stated  as  no  record  of  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  Provincial  Court. 

"^  IV — Archives,  pp.  35-9;  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  p.  232;  Russell,  Maryland  the 
Land  of  Sanctuary,  pp.  126-7. 

26  Cf.  V — Archives  of  Maryland,  Council,  Preface,  p.  1. 


CHAPTER  VII 

CORNWALEYS   AND   THE   JeSUITS 

Shortly  after  the  dissolution  of  the  Second  Assembly, 
three  letters  were  sent  to  Cecihus  Calvert.  The  first  of 
these  is  from  Father  Thomas  Copley,  and  is  dated  April  3, 
1638;  the  second  is  from  Captain  Thomas  Cornwaleys,  and 
is  dated  April  6;  and  the  third  from  Governor  Leonard 
Calvert,  dated  April  25.^  These  letters  probably  reached  the 
Lord  Proprietary  at  the  same  time  that  the  revised  code  of 
laws  sent  over  after  the  sessions  of  the  Assembly.  The 
Archives  of  Maryland  give  only  the  titles  of  the  laws  passed 
at  the  Second  Assembly.  However,  from  these  letters,  much 
information  is  to  be  had  of  the  content  of  the  code. 

In  the  letters  of  the  missionary,  the  Captain  and  the 
Governor,  different  opinions  are  expressed  on  the  code,  in 
accordance  with  the  views  the  different  parties  concerned, 
took  of  the  same.  Calvert  writes:  ^'The  body  of  lawes  you 
sent  over  by  Mr.  Lewger  I  endeavored  to  have  had  passed 
by  the  assembly  at  Maryland  but  could  not  effect  it,  there 
was  so  many  things  unsuteable  to  the  peoples  good  and  no 
way  conduceing  to  your  proffitt  that  being  they  could  not 
be  exempted  from  others  which  they  willingly  would  have 
passed  they  were  desireous  to  suspend  them  all,  the  particlar 
exceptions  which  were  made  against  them  Mr.  Lewger  hath 
given  you  an  account  of  in  his  dispatches  to  you:  others 
have  been  passed  in  the  same  assembly  and  now  sent  unto 
you  which  I  am  perswaded  will  appear  unto  you  to  provide 
both  for  your  honor  and  proffitt  as  much  as  those  you  sent  us 
did."  2 

Father  Copley's  sentiments  are  couched  in  the  following 
language:  ''Touching  the  lawes  which  your  lordshipe  sent,  I 
am  told  that  they  would  not  be  excepted  and,  even  the 
Governor,  and  Mr.  Lugar  said  once  to  me,  that  they  were 
not  fitt  for  this  Colonye.     for  myne  owne  parte,  seeing  noe 

^  The  letters  referred  to  are  to  be  found  in  The  Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  follow- 
ing each  other  in  order  on  pp.  157,  169  and  182  respectively. 
2  Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  pp.  189-190. 

55 


56  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

service  that  I  could  doe  your  lordshipe  therein  and  many 
inconvenices  that  I  might  runne  into  by  intermedUnge,  I 
never  soe  much  as  rede  them  nether  doe  I  yet  know  what  they 
contained;  for  the  temporall  providence  I  left  my  selfe  to 
your  lordshipe  and  for  matter  of  conscience,  I  supposed  that 
your  lordshipe  had  taken  good  advise  what  occasion  then 
could  I  have  to  intermeddle  about  them?  The  lawes  which 
now  are  sent  to  your  lordshipe  I  never  knew  nor  saw  till 
even  now,  that  they  weare  ready  to  be  sent  to  your  lordshipe. 
And  there  being  hast  to  send  them,  I  only  goot  a  hasty  vew  of 
them.  Yet  diverse  things  even  in  that  hasty  reeding  occured 
to  me,  which  I  conceaved  requisite  to  acquanite  you  with 
all,  leaving  them  to  your  lordships  more  serious  con- 
sideration." ^ 

Cornwaley^s  letter  also  voices  criticism  of  both  codes.  He 
writes:  ^'Nor  were  it  difficult  out  of  the  Lawes  sent  over  by 
your  Lordship,  or  these  that  are  from  hence  proposed  toe  you, 
toe  finde  Just  grounds  for  toe  feare  the  Introdusement  of 
Lawes  prejuditiall  toe  oure  honors  and  freedome  witnes 
that  on[e]  Act  whereby  wee  are  exposde  to  A  remediles 
Suffering  of  all  Disgraces  and  Insolensyes  that  eyther  the 
Pastion  or  MaUis  [passion  or  maUce]  of  Suckseedeing 
Governors  shall  please  toe  put  upon  us,  with  out  beeing 
permitted  soe  much  as  A  LawfuU  defence  for  the  secureing 
of  Life  or  reputation  though  never  soe  unjustly  Attempted 
toe  be  taken  from  us,  with  out  forfeyteing  the  same  and  all 
wee  have  to  boote.  This  and  many  other  Absurdetyes  I 
doubt  not  but  your  Lordship  will  finde  and  Correct  upon  the 
peruseall  of  oure  learned  Lawes."  ^ 

The  body  of  laws  sent  over  to  Lord  Baltimore  after  the 
Second  Assembly  were  subjected  to  criticism  by  a  clergyman 
and  a  layman.  In  the  case  of  the  layman.  Captain  Corn- 
waleys,  the  objection  to  the  code  received  all  the  more 
weight  since  it  emanated  from  such  an  important  personage  as 
one  of  the  Governor's  Councillors.     The  laws  were  criticised 


3  Ibid.,  pp.  158-9.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  missionaries  were  excused 
from  attending  sessions  of  the  Assembly,  cf .  / — Archives  of  Maryland,  Assembly, 
p.  5. 

*  Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  p.  173. 


CORNWALEYS   AND   THE    JESUITS  67 

under  a  double  aspect  as  touching  lay  affairs  as  well  as 
spiritual.^ 

As  has  been  stated  above,  much  of  the  content  of  this  code 
submitted  by  the  Second  Assembly  must  be  gleaned  from 
these  letters.  The  titles  of  the  various  acts  as  recorded  in 
the  minutes  of  this  Assembly  help  us  to  identify  the  separate 
topics  spoken  of  in  the  letters,  and  give  us  a  clearer  under- 
standing of  the  laws  in  question. 

Father  Hughes  has  sunmied  up  the  code  in  the  briefest 
possible  way.  He  tells  us  that  '^of  the  two  score  laws  and 
more,  eight  are  about  manors.  They  regulate  the  assigning 
of  manors,  the  peopling  and  supporting  of  them;  and,  strange 
to  say,  they  contain  a  prohibition  to  alienate  or  part  with  a 
manor.  There  is  a  law  that  a  glebe  shall  be  settled,  or,  as 
we  learn  from  Father  Copley,  that  every  manor  shall  pro- 
vide one  hundred  acres  for  the  support  of  a  pastor.  There 
are  laws  about  building  a  town,  erecting  a  fort,  planting  corn, 
and  about  securing  the  titles  to  lands.  There  are  military 
duties  and  services  laid  to  the  charge  of  manors  and  free- 
holds: as  well  as  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  Sovereign  .  .  . 
There  are  laws  about  the  descent  of  land,  the  succession  to  the 
goods  of  intestates,  and  the  probate  of  wills.  Besides,  there 
are  criminal  laws  regarding  capital  offenses;  the  privilege  of 
clergy  for  some  capital  crimes;  the  arbitrary  punishment  of 
enormous  offenses;  and  a  bill  for  the  support  of  the  Lord 
Proprietary. '^  ^ 

From  the  letters  referred  to  we  will  be  able  to  get  a  better 
understanding  of  the  laws  in  themselves  as  well  as  to  form 
an  estimate  of  the  light  in  which  they  were  regarded  by  the 
writers  of  the  same. 

Father  Copley  intimates  to  the  Lord  Proprietor  that 
*'some  here  reflecting  on  what  they  have  done  say  plainly 
that  if  they  canne  not  Hve  here,  they  canne  live  else  where, 
and  therfor  that  they  care  not  much."  He  then  states  that 
others  have  been  complaining  that  the  Governor  and  Mr. 

<*  Hughes,  The  History  of  the  Society  of  Jesua  in  North  America,  Vol.  i, 
Text,  p.  390. 

« Ibid.,  pp.  390-1. 


58  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

Luger  '^and  there  instruments''  had  secured  so  many  proxies 
that  they  did  just  as  they  pleased  without  restraint.  Again 
others  questioned  the  vahdity  of  the  laws  saying  that  they 
could  prove  that  the  laws  were  never  read  thrice  in  the  same 
tenor.  The  missionary  then  asks  if  the  mere  apprehension  of 
future  consequences  affrights  them,  what  will  the  conse- 
quences themselves  do.  He  is  of  the  opinion  that  even  in 
the  most  flourishing  countries  Lords  of  manors  would  find 
laws  of  that  stamp  as  he  refers  to  in  his  letter  burdensome.^ 

Captain  Cornwaleys  tells  the  Proprietor  that  he  desires 
to  see  him  ^^at  peace  with  the  first  Adventurers,  whoe  are  I 
perceave  noe  whit  satisfyed  with  theyre  Last  Conditions  for 
the  Trade.  Theyre  harts  haveing  not  seconded  theyre  hands 
in  the  agreement,  but  some  for  love  some  for  feare  some  by 
Importunety  and  the  rest  for  Company  consented  toe  what 
they  now  repine  toe  stand  toe,  nor  can  I  blame  them  for 
tis  impossible  they  can  be  savers  by  it.  Which  made  mee 
refuse  to  beare  them  Company,  and  therefore  am  I  now  the 
only  Supposed  Enemy  toe  your  Lordships  Profiitt,  which  I 
disclayme  from  unless  there  bee  an  Antipothy  betwixt  that 
and  my  Subcistance  on  this  Place."  ^ 

Father  White,  in  a  letter  dated  February  20,  1638,  speaks 
of  a  class  of  individuals  whom  he  terms  ^'rehnquishers," 
^^men  who  understand  little  of  truck  or  trade"  who  were 
willing  to  sign  away  anything  by  a  concordat.^  This  con- 
cordat, in  the  opinion  of  Father  Hughes,  ^^  seems  to  have 
been  a  subsidiary  manoeuvre  for  handing  over  all  rights  of 
trade  to  his  lordship."  ^^ 

The  Captain  writes  of  the  difficult  conditions  of  trade  and 
of  the  unprofitableness  of  raising  tobacco  in  the  following 
words:  ^'I  was  this  yeere  determined  toe  have  waighted 
upon  your  Lordship  in  England,  and  on[e]  way  or  other  toe 
have  concluded  this  fateall  difference  about  the  Trade,  for 
my  Lord  I  may  properly  use  the  words  of  the  Ghospell,  I 


'  Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  pp.  160-1. 
8  Ibid.,  pp.  173-4. 
Ubid.,  p.  209. 
*<>  Hughes,  op.  cit.,  p.  393. 


CORNWALEYS   AND   THE   JESUITS  59 

cannot  Digg  and  to  Begg  I  am  Ashamed,  if  therefor  your 
Lordship  nor  your  Country  will  afford  me  noe  other  way  toe 
support  the  great  Expenses  that  I  have  beene  and  dayly  am 
at  for  my  Subeistans  heere,  but  what  I  must  fetch  out  of  the 
Grounde  by  Planting  this  Stincking  weede  of  America,  I^ 
must  desert  the  Place  and  busynes,  which  I  confes  I  shall  bee 
loth  toe  doe,  soe  Cordiall  A  lover  am  I  of  them  both,  yet  if  I 
am  forst  toe  it  by  discourteous  Injuries  I  shall  not  weepe  at 
parting  nor  despayre  toe  find  heaven  as  neere  toe  other  parts 
as  Maryland.  But  I  will  first  doe  my  Endeavor  toe  Com- 
pose things  soe  as  non  shall  say  heereafter  that  I  lost  A  right 
I  bought  soe  deere  through  negligens  or  Ignorans.  Other 
mens  Imaginations  are  noe  infallible  presidents  toe  mee,  nor 
will  the  multitude  of  names  nor  Scales,  move  mee  toe  bee  a 
f oole  for  Company,  for  what  in  them  was  only  Inadvertens, 
non  would  tearm  less  then  foUery  in  mee,  whoe  might  or 
ought  toe  know  by  experiens,  that  it  is  impossible  toe  Comply 
with  the  Conditions  mentioned  in  the  Lease  and  bee  a  Saver 
by  them.'^ '' 

Having  considered  the  objections  of  the  missionary  and 
the  Captain  with  regard  to  trade,  we  now  turn  to  examine 
the  complaints  of  the  former  to  certain  laws  passed  by  the 
late  Assembly. 

^' First"  says  Father  Copley,  ''there  is  not  any  care  at  all 
taken,  to  promote  the  conversion  of  the  Indians,  to  provide 
or  to  shew  any  favor  to  Ecclesiastical  persons,  or  to  preserve 
for  the  church  the  Immunitye  and  priveledges,  which  she 
enjoyeth  every  where  else.'^  ^^  Mr.  Lewger  is  accused  of 
defending  the  opinion  that  the  Church  has  no  privileges  by 
divine  right.  The  Secretary,  together  with  others  that  adhere 
to  him,  seem  to  be  resolved  to  bind  the  clergy  to  all  laws  and 
to  make  the  same  exactions  of  them  as  they  do  of  other  men. 
This  official  has  even  demanded  of  Father  Copley,  before  the 
confirmation  of  the  law,  fifteen  hundred  weight  of  tobacco 
towards  the  building  of  a  fort,  ''Whereas"  writes  the  priest, 
"I  dare  boldly  say  that  the  whole  Colony  together  never 
bestowed  on  me  the  worth  of  five  hundred  weight  one  would 

"  Calvert  Papers,  No,  i,  p.  176. 
"  Ibid.,  p.  162. 


60  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

thinke  that  even  out  of  Gratitude,  they  might  free  us  from 
such  kinde  of  taxation  especially  seing,  we  put  noe  taxe 
upon  them,  but  healpe  them  gratis,  and  healpe  them  also  in 
such  a  manner,  that  I  am  sure  they  canne  not  complaine."  ^^ 

^'Secondly  by  the  new  lawe  we  should  relinquish  what  we 
have,  and  then  cast  lotts  in  what  place  we  shall  choose,  and  if 
our  lott  proove  ill,  what  we  have  already  may  be  chosen  from 
us  and  soe  we  may  beginne  the  world  anew,  and  then  ether 
we  must  loose  all  our  buildinge,  all  our  cleering,  all  our 
enclosures,  and  all  our  tennants,  or  else  be  forced  to  sitt 
freeholders,  and  to  pay  for  every  hundred  acres  one  barrell  of 
corne  whereas  we  are  not  yet  in  a  little  care  to  gitt  bread."  ^"^ 
The  result  of  this  procedure  would  be  that  though  the  mis- 
sionaries should  choose  ^^Metapanian"  first,  they  would  lose 
Mr.  Gerard^s  manor  despite  the  fact  that  they  bought  it  at 
great  expense.  Furthermore,  should  this  be  permitted,  then 
the  Assembly  can  so  alter  their  rights  that  no  man  would  be 
sure  what  really  was  his.  Besides  he  who  could  secure  the 
most  proxies  could  dispose  of  the  property  of  others  as  he 
deemed  fit.^^ 

The  next  point  raised  by  Father  Copley  regards  military 
service  under  the  provisions  of  which  they  must  be  trained 
as  soldiers  and  provide  munitions.  They  must  have  in 
every  manor  fifteen  men  available  for  service  whom,  during 
the  time  of  service,  they  must  maintain.  '^  Other  things  we 
should  be  subjecte  to  by  these  lawes,  which  would  be  very 
unfitt  for  us." 

Under  the  law  it  is  expected  that  every  ^^head"  plant  two 
acres  of  corn.  The  fathers  have  not  sufficient  men  to  employ 
in  planting.  If  they  wish  to  comply  with  this  law  they  must 
either  turn  planters  themselves  or  else  ^'trench"  upon  the 
statute.  Under  the  new  regime,  they  would  not  only  lose 
their  trade  in  beaver  and  corn  but  in  the  case  of  the  latter 
they  must  ask  leave  to  buy  the  corn  necessary  for  the  making 
of  bread.     And  should  those  who  have  a  monopoly  in  this 


"  lUd.,  p.  163. 

"  Ihid. 

« Ihid.,  p.  164. 


CORNWALEYS   AND   THE   JESUITS  61 

commodity  or  be  otherwise  indisposed  they  would  be  put  to 
the  embarassment  of  being  '^at  the  courtesy  of  other  men."  ^' 

With  regard  to  the  missionaries  receiving  lands  from  con- 
verted Indians,  Father  Copley  states  that,  though  he  is 
resolved  not  to  take  up  land  except  under  his  Lordship's 
title,  yet  the  time  might  come  when,  such  an  offer  being  made 
toward  building  a  house  or  church  for  the  fathers,  no  small 
inconvenience  might  arise.  With  regard  to  this  possible 
event,  he  inquires  '' whether  any  one  that  should  goe  aboute 
to  restraine  ecclesiasticall  libertys  in  this  point  encurre  not 
the  excommunications  of  Bulla  Coenae." 

Under  the  new  statutes,  in  every  manor  one  hundred 
acres  must  be  laid  out  for  glebe  land.  Should  the  intention 
of  this  law  be  to  bind  them  who  enjoy  it  to  be  pastors,  then 
the  fathers  must  either  become  pastors  themselves  or  in  their 
own  manor  maintain  pastors,  both  of  which  arrangements 
would  be  very  inconvenient. 

The  next  portion  of  Father  Copley's  letter,  we  prefer  to 
give  entirely  in  his  own  words.  It  runs  as  follows:  ^'That  it 
may  be  prevented  that  noe  woman  here  vow  chastety  in  the 
world,  unless  she  marry  within  seven  yeers  after  land  fall  to 
hir,  she  must  ether  dispose  away  of  hir  land,  or  else  she  shall 
forfeite  it  to  the  nexte  of  kinne  and  if  she  have  but  one 
Mannor,  whereas  she  canne  not  alienaite  it,  it  is  gonne 
unlesse  she  git  a  husband.  To  what  purpose  this  ole  law  is 
maid  your  lordshipe  perhaps  will  see  better  than  I  for  my 
parte  I  see  greate  difficultyes  in  it,  but  to  what  purpose  I 
well  see  not."  ^^ 

In  the  order  set  down  for  the  payment  of  debts,  the  Pro- 
prietary is  cautioned  to  ponder  it  well.  Though  Father 
Copley  confesses  he  has  not  examined  it  very  carefully  he 
doubts  not  that  ''it  runneth  not  right  with  that  which  is 
ordinarily  prescribed  by  Casuits  as  just." 

''In  the  thirty-fourth  law  amonge  the  Enormous  Crime 
One  is  Exercisinge  jurisdiction  and  authoritye,  without 
lawfuU  power  and  commission  dirived  from  the  lord  pro- 

i«  Ihid. 
"/6id.,  165. 


62  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

prietarie/'  Hereby,  according  to  the  missionary,  even  by 
Catholics  a  law  is  provided  to  hang  any  CathoUc  bishop  that 
should  come  to  Maryland  as  well  as  any  priest,  if  the  exercise 
of  his  functions  be  interpreted  as  jurisdiction  or  authority. ^^ 

Father  Copley  then  cautions  Lord  Baltimore  that  before 
he  does  anything  in  the  matter  of  these  laws,  he  ponder  well 
the  Bulla  Coenae;  secondly,  that  in  things  concerning  the 
Church,  he  should  take  good  advice  from  church  authorities 
and  finally,  that  he  be  careful  not  to  ^'trench  upon  the  church 
and  where  any  thinge  may  seem  to  trench,  to  use  fitt  pre- 
vention against  the  bad  consequence."  ^^ 

Thomas  Cornwaleys  also  writes  a  word  of  warning.  He 
says:  '^I  beseeche  your  Lordship  for  his  Sake  whose  honor 
you  and  wee  doe  heere  pretend,  and  whoe  at  Last  must 
Judg  with  what  Sincerety  wee  have  discharged  it.  That  you 
from  whose  Consent  they  must  receave  the  bindeing  fors  of 
Lawes,  will  not  permit  the  least  Clawes  toe  pas  that  shall  not 
first  bee  thoroughly  Scand  and  resolved  by  wise  Laerned  and 
Religious  Divines  toe  bee  noe  waise  prejuditiall  toe  the 
Immunettyes  and  Priveledges  of  that  Church  which  is  the 
only  true  Guide  toe  all  Eternall  Happines,  of  which  wee  shall 
shew  oureselves  the  most  ungratefuU  members  that  ever 
shee  nourished,  if  in  requiteall  of  those  many  favors  and 
Blessings  that  shee  and  her  devoute  Servants  have  obtayned 
for  us,  wee  attempt  toe  deprive  her  of  them,  with  out  paying 
such  A  Price  as  hee  that  Buyes  it  will  repent  his  Bargayne. 
What  are  her  Greevances,  and  how  toe  bee  remedyed,  you 
will  I  doubt  not  understand  at  Large  from  those  whoe  are 
more  knowing  in  her  rights  and  Consequently  more  sensyble 
of  her  Injuryes  then  such  an  Ignorant  Creature  as  I  am. 
Wherefore  now  all  that  belongs  toe  mee,  is  only  toe  importune 
your  Lordship  in  whose  powre  t'is  yet  toe  mend  what  we  have 
done  Amis,  toe  bee  most  Careful!  in  preserveing  his  Honor 
whoe  must  Preserve  both  you  and  Maryland.  Perhaps  this 
fault  hath  beene  permitted  in  us  as  a  f avoure  toe  your  Lord- 
ly Ibid.  Father  Copley's  fears  as  to  Lord  Baltimore's  usurping  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction  are  unfounded  as  no  attempt  was  made  by  either  himself  or  the 
Assembly  to  control  the  jurisdiction  of  the  clergy. 
"  Ibid.,  p.  166. 


CORNWALEYS   AND   THE   JESUITS  63 

ship  whereby  you  may  declare  the  Sincerely  of  your  first 
pyouse  pretence  for  the  Planting  of  this  Province,  which  will 
bee  toe  much  doubted  of  if  you  should  take  Advantage  of 
oure  Ignorant  and  uncontionable  proceedeings  toe  Assume 
more  than  wee  can  Justly  give  you.  And  for  A  Little 
Imaginary  Honor,  throw  your  self  us  and  your  Country  out 
of  that  protection  which  hath  hithertoe  preserved  and  Pros- 
pered that  and  us  beyound  Humaine  Expectation;  which  noe 
doubt  will  bee  continued  if  wee  Continue  as  we  ought,  toe 
bee,  I  never  yet  heard  of  any  that  Lost  by  beeing  bountyfull 
toe  God  or  his  Church,  then  let  not  your  Lordship  heare  toe 
bee  the  first.  Give  untoe  God  what  doth  belong  toe  him,  and 
doubt  not  but  Cesar  shall  receave  his  due.  If  your  Lordship 
thinks  mee  toe  teadious  in  A  discourse  not  proper  toe  the 
Part  that  I  doe  Act,  my  Interest  in  the  whole  Action  must 
excuse  mee,  Sylence  would  perhaps  make  mee  Supposed 
Accessary  toe  these  dangerous  Positions,  which  is  soe  far 
from  my  Intention,  that  as  I  now  declare  toe  youre  Lord- 
ship and  shall  not  feare  toe  doe  the  Uke  toe  all  the  world  if  it 
bee  necessary,  I  will  rather  Sacrifice  myself  and  all  I  have  in 
the  defence  of  Gods  Honor  and  his  churches  right,  then 
willingly  Consent  toe  anything  that  may  not  stand  with  the 
Good  Contiens  of  A  Real  CathoUck.  Which  resolution  if 
your  Lordship  doe  not  allsoe  make  good  by  A  Rehgious  Care 
of  what  you  send  over  Authorised  by  your  Consent,  I  shall 
with  as  much  Convenient  speede  as  I  can  with  draw  myself, 
and  what  is  Left  of  that  which  I  brought  with  mee,  out  of 
the  Danger  of  beeing  involved  in  the  ruein  which  I  shall 
infallibly  expect.  Your  Lordship  knowes  my  securety  of 
Contiens  was  the  first  Condition  that  I  expected  from  this 
Government,  which  then  you  thought  soe  Inocent  as  you 
Conceaved  the  Proposition  altogether  impertinent,  But  now 
I  hope  you  will  perceave  the  Contrary.'^  ^ 

From  this  appeal  of  Captain  Cornwaleys  to  the  Proprietor, 
we  learn  that  he  was  very  solicitous  about  the  laws  passed 
by  the  last  Assembly.     In  the  last  chapter  several  instances 


M/Wd.,  pp.  171-3. 


64  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

were  recorded  where  he  objected  to  certain  enactments. 
Since  the  minutes  of  that  Assembly  have  not  come  down  to 
us  we  are  unable  to  know  just  what  opposition  he  raised  to 
the  legislation  of  the  Assembly.  On  March  16,  there  were 
many  of  the  laws  passed  which  met  with  no  opposition  and 
the  Captain  was  present  at  the  session.^^  Again  on  the  last 
day  of  the  Second  Assembly,  it  is  recorded  that  the  Governor 
signed  the  laws  as  well  as  the  rest  of  the  House,  Corn- 
waleys  being  present  on  that  occasion  as  well.  But  the 
dissatisfaction,  as  has  been  seen,  was  by  no  means  confined  to 
Cornwaleys.  Father  Copley  has  told  us,  as  before  stated, 
that  many  complained  about  the  proxies  of  Calvert  and 
Lewger  and  of  the  manner  in  which  the  laws  varied  at  each 
reading.  We  are  led  to  believe  that  the  Captain,  realizing 
this  state  of  affairs,  was  content  to  leave  the  matter  as  it  then 
stood,  resolving  to  write  a  letter  to  the  Proprietary  voicing 
his  condemnation  of  the  laws  to  which  he  objected  and  trusting 
to  Lord  Baltimore's  good  judgment  and  honesty  in  the  case 
for  redress.  That  the  Captain  was  not  always  of  one  mind 
with  Governor  Calvert  is  also  evident  from  the  words  of  a 
letter  written  by  Leonard  Calvert  to  his  brother.  He  says 
that  ^^it  hath  been  his  fortune  and  myne  to  have  had  some 
differences  formerly  yet  in  many  things  I  have  had  his  faith- 
full  assistance  for  your  service  and  in  nothing  more  then 
in  the  expedicion  to  Kent  this  last  winter.''  22  These  dif- 
ferences of  which  Calvert  speaks  may  have  been  with  regard 
to  the  laws. 

After  Father  Copley  had  addressed  his  warning  to  the  Lord 
Proprietor,  he  asked  for  certain  privileges  to  be  granted  to 
him  by  a  private  order  as  long  as  the  government  remained 
Catholic.  They  are  as  follows:  ''The  first  that  the  church 
and  our  houses  may  be  Sanctuarie.  The  second  that  our 
selves  and  our  domestique  servants,  and  halfe  at  least  of  our 
planting  servants,  may  be  free  from  publique  taxes  and 
services.    And  the  rest  of  our  servants  and  our  tennants, 

2^  / — Archives,  p.  20. 

22  Letter  of  Leonard  Calvert  to  the  Proprietary,  dated  April  25, 1638,  Calvert 
Papers,  No.  i,  p.  190. 


C0RNWALEY8  AND   THE  JESUITS  65 

though  exteriorly  the  doe  as  others  in  the  Colony,  Yet  that  in 
the  manner  of  exacting  or  doing  it,  privatly  the  custome  of 
other  cathoHques  countrye  may  be  observed  as  much  as  may 
be  that  cathoUques  out  of  bad  practice  cunrnie  not  to  forgit 
those  due  respects  which  they  owe  to  god  and  his  church.^ 
The  third  is  that  though  in  publique  we  suffer  our  cause  to  be 
heard  and  tryed  by  the  publique  magestrats,  yet  that  in 
private  they  know,  that  they  doe  it  but  as  arbitrators  and 
defendors  of  the  church  because  Ecclesiasticall  jurisdiction 
is  not  yet  here  setled.  The  fourth.  That  in  our  owne 
persons  and  with  such  as  are  needfull  to  assiste  us,  we  may 
freely  goe,  abide  and  live  amonge  the  Savages,  with  out  any 
hcence  to  be  had  here  from  the  Governor,  or  any  other, 
lastly,  that  though  we  relinquish  the  use  of  many  ecclesiasti- 
call priviledge  when  we  judge  it  convenient  for  satisfaction  of 
the  state  at  home,  yet  that  it  be  left  to  our  discretion  to 
determine  when  this  is  requisite;  and  that  we  be  suffered  to 
enjoy  such  other  priviledges  as  we  may  with  out  note.^^  And 
touching  our  temporaltyes.  first  I  beseech  your  lordshipe  that 
we  may  take  up  and  keepe  soe  much  lande,  as  in  my  former 
letters  I  acquainted  your  lordshipe  to  be  requisite  for  our 
present  occasions,  according  to  the  first  conditions  which  we 
maid  with  your  lordshipe  ...  In  the  trade  I  shall  requeste 
that  your  lordshipe  performe  soe  much,  as  that  we  may 
employ  one  bote  whensoever  we  shall  not  otherwyse  use  it 
...  I  desire  lykwyse  from  your  lordshipe  a  free  Grante  to 
buy  corn  of  the  Indians  without  asking  leave  here,  for  endeed 
It  will  be  a  greate  pressure  to  eate  our  bread  at  there  curtesye, 
who  as  yet  I  have  found  but  very  httle  curtous."  ^  At  the 
beginning  of  Father  Copley's  letter,  Lord  Baltimore  wrote 
^'heerein  are  demands  of  very  extravagant  priviledges." 

Whatever  opinion  one  may  form  as  to  the  justice  of  the 
claim  of  the  missionaries,  or  of  the  rights  of  Lord  Baltimore, 
two  considerations  must  not  be  lost  sight  of.     In  the  first 


»  Lord  Baltimore  here  notes  in  his  own  handwriting  on  the  margin  of  the 
letter:  "All  their  tenants  as  well  as  servants  he  intimates  heere  aought  to  be 
exempted  from  the  temporall  government."    Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  p.  loo. 

*«  CalveH  Papers,  No.  i,  pp.  166-7. 

» Ibid.,  pp.  166-8. 


66  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

place,  the  generous,  self-sacrificing  conduct  of  the  Jesuit 
missionaries,  precludes  the  conclusion  that  the  Fathers  were 
actuated  by  mere  mercenary  motives.  Their  one  object  was 
to  enable  them  more  effectively  to  further  their  Apostolic 
work  in  extending  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  Davis,  an 
Episcopalian,  writing  of  them,  says:  ^^ Their  pathway  was 
through  the  desert;  and  their  first  chapel,  the  wigwam  of  an 
Indian.  Two  of  them  were  here,  at  the  dawn  of  our  history: 
they  came  to  St.  Mary's  with  the  original  emigrants;  they 
assisted,  by  pious  rites,  in  laying  the  corner-stone  of  a  State ; 
they  kindled  the  torch  of  civilization  in  the  wilderness;  they 
gave  consolation  to  the  grief-stricken  pilgrim;  they  taught 
the  religion  of  Christ  to  the  simple  sons  of  the  forest.  The 
history  of  Maryland  presents  no  better,  no  purer,  no  more 
subhme  lesson  than  the  story  of  the  toils,  sacrifices,  and 
successes  of  her  early  missionaries.''  ^^ 

^^The  impartial  observer  of  events  will,  in  the  second 
place,"  says  Russell,  '^ remember  that  Lord  Baltimore  was  a 
Catholic  whose  sincerity  cannot  be  questioned.  Had  he, 
like  his  grandson,  renounced  his  faith,  most,  if  not  all,  the 
difficulties  and  dangers  which  menaced  his  colony  would  have 
disappeared,  and  his  success  in  every  worldly  way  would  have 
been  assured.  He  held  fast  to  his  Church  at  the  cost  of 
enormous  sacrifices,  and  such  sacrifices  are  proof  sufficient 
of  the  genuineness  of  his  belief."  ^^ 

We  have  stated  in  the  beginning  of  this  chapter  that  these 
letters  touched  spiritual  matters  and  lay  or  temporal  af- 
fairs. What  the  fate  of  the  code  was  will  be  seen  in  a  subse- 
quent chapter.  We  can  therefore  touch  briefly  upon  the 
relations  of  Lord  Baltimore  and  the  missionaries.  This 
matter  forms  a  part  of  the  biography  of  Thomas  Corn- 
waleys  in  so  far  as  he  was  on  the  side  of  the  fathers  as  is 
abundantly  proven  by  his  letter.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  no  matter  what  differences  may  have  arisen  between  the 
Proprietary  and  the  Jesuits,  this  in  no  wise  weakened  his 


2«  Davis,  The  Day-Star  of  American  Freedom,  pp.  159-60. 
2^  Russell,  Maryland  the  Land  of  Sanctuary,  p.  151. 


CORNWALEY8  AND  THE   JESUITS  67 

faith  in  the  Church  for  which  he  was  ever  prepared  to  make 
heroic  sacrifices.^* 

Under  date  of  April  4,  1634,  shortly  after  the  arrival  of 
the  colonists  in  Maryland,  a  decree  of  Propaganda  states,  to 
use  the  words  of  Father  Hughes,  **that,  at  the  instance  of  the 
*EngUsh  clergy,^  whomsoever  that  term  may  designate,  the 
Sacred  Congregation  judged  the  proposal  of  sending  a 
mission  to  Maryland,  in  the  premises,  as  a  measure  highly 
opportune;  and  it  ordered  'the  agent  of  the  same  clergy'  to 
name  a  prefect  and  missionaries,  or  to  have  them  named  by 
the  French  Nuncio,  who  in  all  cases  was  to  report  on  the 
fitness  of  the  men  designated."  ^^  For  some  years  nothing 
seems  to  have  been  done  in  the  matter.  However,  in  1641, 
in  accordance  with  the  wishes  of  Lord  Baltimore,  Mgr. 
Rosetti,  Nuncio  in  Belgium,  was  instructed  by  Propaganda 
to  spnd  ''information  about  the  said  island  (Maryland),  the 
Catholics  there,  secular  priests  in  England  fitted  for  the 
mission,  and  especially  one  more  prominent  and  learned,  who 
might  be  appointed  prefect.''  ^° 

Monsignor  Rosetti,  afterwards  Archbishop  of  Tarsus, 
after  a  visit  to  England  in  1641,  sent  his  report  to  the  Sacred 
Congregation,  together  with  the  names  of  fourteen  priests 
who  were  deemed  fit  to  be  sent  to  the  mission  field  of  Mary- 
land. The  first  name  on  the  Hst  is  that  of  Rev.  Dr.  Britton, 
who  might  be  made  Prefect.^^  After  faculties  had  been 
dispatched  for  the  new  missionaries  to  Father  PhiUps,  the 
Queen's  confessor,  a  memorial  on  behalf  of  the  Jesuits  was 
addressed  to  the  Holy  Office  complaining  against  the  attitude 
of  Lord  Baltimore  and  protesting  against  the  sending  of  the 
Secular  clergy  to  Maryland.^^ 

In  February,  1642,  having  received  the  Memorial,  the 
Congregation  of  the  Holy  Office  ordered  the  faculties  of  the 
Secular  clergy  suspended  and  the  mission  put  off  "until  such 
time  as  this  Sacred  Congregation  shall  have  examined  some 


"/Wd.,  p.  156. 

*•  HuKhe«,  op.  cU.,  p.  333. 

'*  Ibid.f  Hughes  quoting  Propaganda  Archives,  p.  495. 

"  /Wd.,  pp.  4©3-8. 

«*  Ibid.,  pp.  506-15;  also  Russell,  op.  cU.,  pp.  152-3. 


68  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

points,  and  determined  that  which  is  best  to  do  for  the  greater 
service  of  God  ever  blessed,  and  for  the  propagation  of  the 
holy  faith."  ^^  In  the  meantime  the  clergy  appointed  to  go 
to  the  colony  were  impatiently  awaiting  their  faculties.  Not 
knowing  entirely  the  causes  of  the  delay,  they  were  minded 
to  proceed  at  first  in  virtue  of  their  ordinary  faculties  for 
the  royal  dominions  of  Great  Britain.  However,  Rosetti 
dissuaded  them  from  proceeding  in  this  manner. ^^  Mean- 
while Lord  Baltimore,  finding  his  purpose  of  sending  Secular 
missionaries  thwarted,  decided  that  the  Jesuits  also  should 
not  go,  while  at  the  same  time,  Leonard  Calvert  endeavored 
to  prevent  the  missionaries  actually  in  the  colony  from 
leaving.^^  A  deadlock  resulted.  To  overcome  the  difficulty 
the  General  of  the  Jesuits  wrote  to  Father  Edward  Knott,  the 
Provincial  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  in  England  on  November 
22,  1642:  ''I  myself  will  see  that  faculties  are  asked  for  them 
from  the  (Cardinal)  Protector,  to  buy  off  vexation.  If  they 
are  obtained  I  will  let  your  Reverence  know.''  ^^ 

Whether  this  arrangement  of  the  General  was  agreeable  or 
whether  the  suspended  faculties  were  granted  to  the  Secular 
Fathers,  we  cannot  say.  However,  two  Secular  priests, 
Fathers  Gilmett  and  Territt,  set  sail  sometime  about 
November,  1642,  on  different  vessels."  The  Proprietary, 
in  a  letter  dated  November  21,  1642,  commends  the  Fathers 
to  the  Governor's  care;  in  another  letter  written  from  Bristol, 
on  November  18, 1643,^^  further  instructions  are  given  to  look 
after  the  welfare  of  these  priests.^* 

In  writing  of  Father  Copley's  relations  with  Lord  Balti- 
more, Russell  considers  the  characters  of  this  missionary  and 
Secretary  Lewger.  He  says:  '^Copley  and  Lewger  were  men 
of  strong  individuaUty,  powerful  will  and  extraordinary 
tenacity  of  purpose,  and  their  clash  of  temperaments 
probably  resulted  from  the   manifest    similarity   of    their 

33  Hughes,  op.  ciL,  citing  Vatican  Archives,  p.  520. 
3^  Ibid.,  p.  524. 

35  Russell,  op.  cit.,  p.  154. 

36  Hughes,  op.  cit.,  p.  532. 

37  Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  p.  212. 
38/6td. 

33  III — Archives  of  Maryland,  Council,  p.  143. 


CORNWALEY8   AND   THE   JESUITS  69 

natures/'  *°  Again  he  says:  "A  meeting  of  these  two  indomit- 
able natures  could  hardly  make  for  'peace  and  good  will,' 
yet  we  cannot  doubt  of  their  sincerity  and  self-sacrificing 
zeal."  « 

Regarding  the  champions  of  either  side,  whether  of  the 
Proprietary  or  the  Jesuits,  much  can  be  said.  The  mis- 
sionaries asked  at  most,  special  privileges,  but  we  cannot  say 
that  they  begrudged  freedom  of  conscience  to  other  reUgion- 
ists.  Moreover  the  privileges  they  asked  for,  were  such  as 
the  clergy  enjoyed  in  Catholic  England  under  Magna  Charta 
until  the  time  of  the  Protestant  separation.  ''The  world 
at  large,"  says  the  author  of  Maryland  the  Land  of  Sanctuary ^ 
"had  hardly  at  that  time  conceived  an  idea  of  such  a  state 
of  afifairs  as  obtains  now  in  the  United  States.  We,  today, 
are  accustomed  to  the  present  relations  of  Church  and  State; 
we  can  see  its  practicability,  and  we  can  appreciate  its 
advantages.  It  was  then  an  untried  novelty  in  civil  govern- 
ment. To  most  people  there  appeared  no  middle  way 
between  favoring  one  church  or  another.  The  devoted, 
self-sacrificing  priests,  zealous  for  the  salvation  of  souls, 
.  .  .  shut  out  from  the  rest  of  the  world,  were  quite  naturally 
in  no  position  to  take  such  a  view  of  the  situation  as  pre- 
sented itself  to  Lord  Baltimore.  It  was  clear  to  him  as  to 
many  other  far-seeing  statesmen  that  the  time  was  come 
when  the  religious  and  political  conditions  of  the  world 
demanded  religious  freedom.  In  this  respect,  he  and  the 
other  colonists  who  upheld  his  policy  were  far  in  advance  of 
their  times."  ^^ 


*•  Ruflsell,  op.  cit.,  p.  158. 
« Ibid.,  p.  159. 
•/bid.,  pp.  172-3. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

Jerome  Hawley  and  Thomas  Cornwaleys 

Among  the  first  colonists  who  arrived  in  Maryland,  was 
the  fellow  Commissioner  of  Thomas  Cornwaleys,  Jerome 
Hawley,  a  friend  of  the  Captain.  Hawley  was  a  man  of 
education  and  refinement.  In  appointing  him  as  one  of  the 
Commissioners,  Lord  Baltimore  proved  that  he  placed 
confidence  in  his  talents  and  good  judgment.  ^ '  He  embarked 
with  the  Governor,^'  says  Streeter,  ^'participated  in  the 
dangers  and  trials  of  the  voyage,  aided  in  the  first  recon- 
noisance  of  the  country  on  the  Potomac,  and  was  one  of 
those  who,  with  appropriate  civil  and  religious  ceremonies, 
united  in  taking  possession  of  the  ground  selected  as  the  site 
of  the  first  settlement,  and  christening  it  by  the  name  of  St. 
Mary's.^^ ' 

Hawley  became  treasurer  of  Virginia  early  in  1637.2 
While  performing  the  duties  incumbent  on  him  in  virtue  of 
this  office,  he  continued  to  act  as  Commissioner  and  Counsel- 
lor of  Maryland.  In  the  administration  of  his  duties  in 
Virginia,  Hawley  drew  upon  himself  the  criticism  of  Secretary 
Kemp,  who  wrote  a  letter  of  complaint  against  him  to  the 
Proprietary  of  Maryland.  Governor  Calvert  also  wrote  to 
his  brother  relative  to  the  same  matter.  Cornwaleys  was 
cognizant  of  the  disfavor  into  which  Hawley  had  fallen  and 
wrote  a  defense  of  his  friend  to  Cecilius  Calvert. 

Kemp  wrote  on  April  25,  1638,  to  acquaint  Lord  Baltimore 
of  how  matters  stood  upon  the  arrival  of  Hawley  in  Virginia 
as  Treasurer.  He  states  that  such  was  the  general  dislike  of 
the  inhabitants  of  Virginia  against  Hawley  that  they  would 
have  removed  him  from  office  by  an  act  of  Assembly  had  not 
the  Governor  and  Counsel  curbed  their  proceedings.  When 
Hawley  assumed  his  office,  he  gave  them  no  further  account 
of  the  extent  of  his  powers  than  those  expressed  in  his  com- 
mission.    He   alleges   that   he   enjoyed   the   same   powers 

1  Streeter,  Papers  relating  to  the  Early  History  of  Maryland,  p.  109. 

2  Steiner,  Beginnings  of  Maryland,  p.  16  (note). 

70 


JEROME   HAWLEY  AND   THOMAS  CORNWALEYS  71 

which  former  Treasurers  had,  and  these  were  expressly  vested 
in  him  for  receiving  quit  rents.  After  the  Assembly,  the  new 
Treasurer  produced  his  *' Instructions^'  wherein  fines  and 
all  other  perquisites  to  the  King  were  expressly  ''within  the 
Lymitts  of  his  commission,  as  allso  all  Grants  of  Land  were 
first  to  passe  his  appbation,  [approbation],  and  allowance  and 
upon  what  tearmes  they  were  to  passe  was  left  to  his  dis- 
cretion." "In  which  particulars, '^  Kemp  remarked,  ''the 
Governor  and  Counsell  had  just  cause  to  doubt  what  his 
Intendments  were."  ^ 

The  Secretary  furthermore  complained  that  the  Governor's 
main  subsistence  was  taken  away.  All  Governors  would 
therefore  be  obhged  to  demand  means  from  the  people  since 
the  pension  of  the  King  would  suffice  to  maintain  that  official 
in  a  manner  proper  to  his  dignity.  With  regard  to  grants  of 
land,  he  says  that  the  terms  have  always  been  certain  as  given 
by  the  "Antient  Charter"  and  have  been  successively  con- 
firmed to  the  Governor  and  Council.  The  sudden  change, 
consequently  is  a  cause  of  distraction  to  the  people  as  well  as  a 
source  of  discouragement  to  those  "who  serve  his  matie  here 
in  the  places  of  Governor  and  Counsell."  * 

Kemp  then  lays  before  Lord  Baltimore  some  of  his  own 
grievances.  "The  Office  and  benefit  of  the  Invoices"  which 
formerly  belong  to  the  Secretary  now  pertain  to  the  Treas- 
urer. He  then  states  that  he  is  informed  that  Hawley's 
purposes  are  to  gain  the  profits  of  the  "Pattents,"  and  to 
have  the  keeping  of  the  seals.  What  fees  are  left  to  the 
Secretary  will  accordingly  not  clothe  and  pay  one  clerk 
yearly.  He  then  voices  his  grievance  that  though  his  labor 
is  doubled,  he  does  not  receive  the  same  allowance  as  former 
Secretaries.^ 

The  question  logically  arises  as  to  the  reasons  why 
Secretary  Kemp  addressed  this  complaint  to  Lord  Baltimore. 
The  reason  is  found  in  the  conclusion  of  his  letter.  "Why 
I  have  taken  the  boldness  to  trouble  yor  Lorpp  wth  this 

» Calvert  Papen,  No.  i,  p.  163. 
*  Ibid.,  pp.  163-4. 
•/6W.,p.  164. 


72  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

Relation,  without  the  Least  Intimation  heerein  to  any  other, 
with  favor  I  am  thus  induced.  Because  I  receive  from  un- 
doubted Information  that  the  effect  of  Mr.  Hawlye  his  busi- 
ness proceeded  from  yor  Lorpps  favour  in  his  behalf.  I  am 
from  my  owne  assurance  as  confident  that  yor  Lorpps  intents 
had  noe  aime  eyther  of  publiq  greivance,  or  lessening  those 
whose  service  you  may  please  in  any  tryall  to  command.  All 
wch  therefore  I  humbly  tender  to  yor  Lorpps  consideration."^ 

Writing  to  his  brother,  on  April  25, 1638,  Governor  Leonard 
Calvert  makes  certain  accusations  against  Jerome  Hawley. 
*'l  am  informed,"  he  says,  ^Hht  upon  occasion  of  discourse 
given  before  Sr  Jhon  Harvey  Mr.  Jemp  and  Mr.  Hawley  by 
Mr.  Boteler  whether  Palmers  He  were  within  the  Province 
of  Maryland  or  no  Mr.  Hawley  did  so  weackly  defend  your 
title  to  it  that  Boteler  grew  more  confident  of  proceeding  in 
planting  it  for  his  Brother  Cleyborne  and  I  have  some  reason 
to  thinck  that  Mr.  Hawley  did  willingly  let  your  title  fall  for 
some  designe  sake  of  his  owne  upon  trade  wth  the  Sasqua- 
hannoughs  wch  he  might  conceive  better  hopes  to  advance 
by  its  depenice  on  Virginia  then  on  Maryland."  ^ 

The  Governor  then  goes  on  to  say  that  when  he  held  a 
Council  meeting  at  St.  Mary's  concerning  the  expedition  to 
Kent  Island  with  the  purpose  of  putting  a  stop  to  the  planting 
of  the  Island  by  Boteler  and  Smith,  Hawley  ^^  earnestly 
diswaded  it"  by  bringing  up  every  reason  in  his  power  to 
make  Lord  Baltimore's  title  doubtful  and  to  show  that  it 
would  be  unlawful  to  hinder  these  men  from  planting  there. 
Hawley  did  all  this  despite  the  fact  that  the  argument  was 
brought  forth  that  their  being  there  would  be  most  dangerous 
to  the  Marylanders  since  Boteler  and  Smith  would  incite  the 
Indians  against  them  and  might  even  furnish  the  savages 
with  weapons  against  them.  If  the  expedition  were  given 
up,  all  hope  of  a  treaty  with  the  Indians  would  be  set  at 
naught. 

The  letter  then  proceeds  as  follows:  ^^I  beleeve  the  faire 
promises  wch  he  made  you  in  England  when  you  procured 

« Ibid.y  pp.  154-5. 
'  Ibid.,  pp.  187-8. 


JEROME   HAWLEY  AND  THOMAS  CORNWALEY8  73 

the  prefermt  he  hath  in  Virginia  how  usefull  he  would  prove 
to  your  Colony  by  it,  will  never  be  performed  by  him  for 
nothing  moveth  him  but  his  owne  ends  and  those  he  intend- 
eth  wholly  to  remove  from  Maryland  and  place  them  in 
Virginia,  and  intendeth  shortly  to  remove  his  wife  and  family 
thither,  I  am  sorry  it  was  your  ill  fortune  to  be  a  meanes  of  so 
much  good  to  him  who  is  to  ingrateful  for  it."  ® 

Calvert  then  informs  his  brother  that  Hawley  disclaims 
that  he  ever  sought  the  aid  of  Lord  Baltimore  or  that  he 
ever  had  any  designs  of  procuring  the  Proprietary's  influence 
toward  securing  this  position  for  him.  This  information, 
the  Governor  tells  Cecilius  Calvert,  was  communicated  to 
him  by  Cornwaleys.^ 

Captain  Cornwaleys  was  fully  aware  of  the  disfavor  into 
which  his  friend  had  fallen  with  Governor  Calvert.  That 
the  Captain  did  not  believe  all  the  accusation  against  Mr. 
Hawley  is  apparent  from  his  letter  written  on  April  6,  1638.^° 
In  it  he  utters  a  strong  defence  on  behalf  of  his  fellow  Coun- 
cillor, as  follows: 

'^Newes  I  know  yr  Lop  lookes  for  non  but  what  concernes 
the  Commonwealth  of  Maryland  in  wch  what  I  am  defective 
I  doubt  not  but  yr  Secretary  will  Supply  whoe  is  as  quick  as 
I  am  Slow  in  writeing,  and  therefore  in  that  part  A  verry  fit 
Subject  for  the  place  hee  bears.  And  if  hee  proves  not  tooe 
StifT  A  maintayner  of  his  owne  opinions,  and  Somewhat  tooe 
forward  in  Sugiesting  new  businesses  for  his  owne  imploy- 
ment,  hee  may  perhaps  doe  God  and  yr  Lop  good  Service 
heere  I  should  be  Sorry  toe  Change  Mr.  Hawley  for  him 
whoe  I  perceave  stands  not  soe  perfect  in  yr  Lops  favoure  as 
I  could  wish  him  wch  perhaps  some  takeing  Advantage  at, 
and  wilhng  for  toe  fish  in  trobled  waters,  may  by  discourteous 
proceedings  towards  him  make  him  weary  of  unproffitable 
Maryland,  And  fors  him  toe  A  Change  more  for  his  peace 
and  Proffit.    As  Doubtles  Virginia  would  bee  toe  him  if  he 

•  Ibid.,  pp.  188-9. 

•Ibid.,  p.  189. 

>•  This  letter  of  Thomas  Cornwaleys  is  the  same  one  quoted  extensively  in 
the  preceding  chapter.  Owing  to  the  diversity  of  the  topics,  it  was  deemed 
best  not  to  consider  the  document  in  any  one  chapter,  but  rather  to  use  the 
information  as  demanded  by  the  various  events  described  in  different  chapters. 


74  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

make  good  what  hee  hath  undertaken,  of  wch  I  see  no  other 
LikeUhood  if  hee  have  not  left  his  worst  Enemies  behinde 
him,  Among  wch  number  I  am  Sorry  toe  see  such  probabillety 
of  yr  Lops  beeing  on  as  I  perceave  there  is.     What  reasons 
you  have  for  it  is  unknowne  toe  mee,  nor  doe  I  presume  toe 
Judg  where  the  fault  is.  All  that  I  wish  as  A  Poore  friende  of 
his,  is  that  yr  Lop  rightly  understood  him  for  from  thens  I 
verrely  beleeve  doth  flow  those  Jealosyes  that  I  preceave  are 
risen  betwixt  you,  wch  beeing  increast  by  misapprehentions  of 
Contentious  Spirits  must  certaynely  if  not  in  time  prevented 
by  some  Charitable  reconsiliation  breake  forth  with  such 
vyolens  as  will  endanger  the  noe  little  prejudice  of  on  or  both 
of  you.     I  Assure  yr  Lop  did  I  know  any  Just  Cause  toe 
Suspect  his  Sincerety  toe  Maryland,  or  the  designe  wee  came 
upon,  I  should  not  bee  soe  Confydent  of  his  Innosence  in 
deserving  toe  ill  from  you  or  this  Place.    I  cannot  my  Lord 
Suppose  A  little  verball  vehemensy  uttered  in  the  defens 
of  A  mans  owne  Supposed  right,  Suffitient  toe  Conclude  him 
guilty  of  looseing  all  former  respects  toe  greater  obligations, 
wch  if  it  bee  soe  greate  A  Crime  I  am  toe  seeke  where  I 
should  finde  on  that  would  bee  free  when  he  Supposeth  his 
right  unjustly  questioned.     I  must  confes  I  cannot  pleade 
not  guilty,  and  yet  I  doubt  not  but  my  greatest  Enemies  doe 
really  beleeve  mee  for  toe  bee  as  I  am  A  most  unfayned 
friende  toe  Maryland.     And  soe  I  am  confident  will  Mr. 
Hawley  Apeere  if  you  will  give  him  time  and  ocation  for  toe 
manifest  it,  and  not  by  vyolent  discourtesyes  upon  uncertain 
suppositions  fors  him  toe  Change  his  good  intentions  yr  Lop 
knowes  how  many  difficultyes  hee  past  in  England,  nor  hath 
hee  beene  exempt  from  the  like  in  these  parts,  and  therefore 
hee  is  not  too  bee  blamed  for  laying  howld  of  some  probable 
way  toe  repayre  his  many  misfortunes,  there  beeing  noe 
Antipothy  betwixt  that  and  the  continueing  of  his  respects 
untoe  yr.  Lop.     Well  may  the  dischargeing  of  the  office  hee 
hath  undertaken  invite  him  sometimes  toe  Looke  towards 
Virginia,  but  certaynely  not  with  prejudice  toe  Maryland, 
from  whens  hee  receaves  the  greatest  Comforts  that  the 


JEROME   HAWLEY   AND   THOMAS   CORNWALEYS  75 

World  affords  him  both  for  Sowle  and  body  the  on  from  the 
Church  the  other  from  his  wife,  whoe  by  her  comportment  in 
these  difficult  affayrs  of  her  husbands,  hath  manifested  as 
much  virtue  and  discrestion  as  can  bee  expected  from  the 
Sex  she  owes,  whose  Industrious  huswifery  hath  soe  Adorned 
this  Desert,  that  should  his  discouragements  fors  him  toe 
withdraw  himself  and  her,  it  would  not  A  Little  Eclips  the 
Glory  of  Maryland.''  ^^ 

Jerome  Hawley  also  expresses  a  word  in  self-defence  in  a 
letter  written  from  Virginia  on  May  8,  1638,  to  Sir  Francis 
Windebanke.  At  the  close  of  his  letter  he  writes:  ^'  Since  my 
coming  to  the  place  of  Treasurer,  I  have  decerned  some  under- 
hand oppositions  made  against  me,  but  littell  hathe  appeared 
in  publick,  therefore  I  can  not  particularly  laye  it  to  any 
man's  charge.  And  because  I  finde  that  it  chiefly  aims  at  the 
hindering  me  in  making  any  benefitte  of  my  place  (whereof  I 
assure  your  Honour  I  have  not  yet  made  the  value  of  five 
pound  towards  my  charges)  I  doe  therefore  make  it  my 
humble  sute  unto  your  Honour  that  you  wilbe  pleased  to  move 
the  King  in  my  behalf e  and  procure  His  Majesties  warrant 
for  my  fees,  to  the  effect  of  this  I  send  enclosed,  which  being 
added  to  your  former  favours,  will  much  encrease  my 
obhgations  to  your  Honour."  ^^ 

From  the  letters  of  Kemp  and  Calvert  on  the  one  hand,  and 
of  Cornwaleys  and  Hawley  on  the  other,  we  realize  that  there 
are  two  sides  to  the  question  as  in  every  discussion.  To  us, 
it  seems  that  the  arguments  redounded  to  Hawley's  favour. 
Whether  he  was  vindicated,  we  cannot  tell.  Streeter,  in  the 
brief  biography  of  Hawley  contained  in  his  Papers  relating 
to  the  Early  History  of  Maryland^  writes  in  reference  to 
Hawley's  letter  to  Windebanke:  ''Within  this  despatch  in 
the  State  Paper  Office,  was  enclosed  the  form  of  a  warrant 
from  the  king,  granting  to  Jerome  Hawley,  Treasurer  of 
Virginia,  power  to  appoint  deputies  for  viewing  tobacco,  and 
to  receive  as  his  lawful  fee,  one  pound  of  tobacco  for  every 
hundred  weight  of  the  same,  viewed  by  him  or  his  deputies, 


"  Cdlveri  Papers,  No.  i,  pp.  179-81 
"  Streeter,  op.  cU.,  p.  120. 


76  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

but  whether  this  was  a  form  transmitted  by  the  petitioner  or 
a  warrant  drawn  by  authority  of  the  king,  in  comphance  with 
his  petition,  we  cannot  say.''  ^^ 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  result  of  Cornwaleys'  appeal 
in  his  friend's  behalf  or  of  the  petition  addressed  to  Sir 
Francis  Windebank,  Jerome  Hawley  was  soon  to  be  beyond 
the  harm  of  vituperation  where  the  good  or  evil  report  of 
men  matters  naught.  In  a  previous  chapter,  we  have  alluded 
to  the  sickness  that  prevailed  during  the  year  1638.  The 
fellow  Councillor  and  friend  of  Cornwaleys  died  early  in 
August  of  that  year,  probably  a  victim  to  the  disease.  ^^ 

Among  the  Annual  Letters  of  the  English  Province  of  the 
Society  of  Jesus,  in  the  one  for  that  year  regarding  the 
Mission  of  Maryland,  we  read  of  the  death  of  a  man  who 
was  the  beneficiary  of  the  ministrations  of  the  Fathers,  and 
whom  Father  Hughes  believes  to  have  been  Jerome  Hawley.  ^^ 
The  account  reads:  ^'Several  of  the  chief  men  have,  through 
the  use  of  the  Spiritual  Exercises,  been  formed  by  us  to 
piety;  a  fruit  by  no  means  to  be  despised.  In  one  especial 
case  we  adore  the  wonderful  providence  and  mercy  of  God, 
which  brought  a  man  encompassed  in  the  world  with  many 
difficulties,  and  obliged  to  hve  in  Virginia  constantly  deprived 
of  all  spiritual  aid,  to  promise,  not  long  before  his  death,  that 
he  whould  undertake  these  Exercises.  This  intention  was 
prevented  by  a  severe  sickness  which  he  bore  with  the 
greatest  patience,  fixing  his  mind  firmly  on  God;  and  at 
length,  having  duly  received  all  the  sacraments,  in  a  state 
of  most  unusual  peace  he  gave  back  his  soul  to  God,  which 
had  been  so  full  of  troubles  and  disquietudes."  ^^ 

In  Hawley's  will,  made  at  the  time  of  leaving  England 
with  the  first  colonists,  he  had  appointed  residents  of  the 
mother  country  as  his  executors.  Thomas  Cornwaleys  was, 
however,  appointed  administrator  of  his  estate  for  reasons 

13  Ibid. 

^^  Ibid.,  p.  121. 

1"^  Hughes,  History  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  in  North  America,  Vol.  i,  Text,  p.  337. 

1^  Foley,  Records  of  the  English  Province  of  the  Society  of  Jesus,  Vol.  iii,  p. 
371.  This  work  contains  the  EngHsh  version  of  the  letter  quoted.  The 
Latin  version  is  to  be  found  in  Hughes,  op.  cit.,  Documents,  Vol.  i,  Part  i,  p.  1 12. 


JEROME   HAWLEY   AND   THOMAS   CORNWALEY8  77 

which  shall  be  seen  below.  In  the  records  of  the  Provincial 
Court,  we  find  the  following  entry: 

administration  of  mr  Hawleys  estate  granted  to  the 
Captaine,  mr  Tho:  Cornwaleys  Esq  &.  the  Inventary 
to  be  brought  in  within  a  moneth,  and  the  Accompt 
within  a  twelve  moneth.    date  2.  August  1638.^^ 

The  records  contain  a  document  from  the  Proprietor  appoint- 
ing him  to  this  office.  From  it,  we  find  that  Hawley's  will 
was  dated  October  20,  1633.  Owing  to  the  distance  at  which 
the  three  original  executors  mentioned  in  the  will  lived,  it 
was  deemed  expedient  by  Cecilius  Calvert  to  appoint  Corn- 
waleys administrator  ^'of  the  goods  and  chattells^'  of  Jerome 
Hawley,  on  August  14,  1638.  The  Captain  was  ordered  to 
exhibit  to  Secretary  Lewger  ''a  true  and  perfect  Inventary  of 
all  the  said  goods  &  chattells  within  one  moneth  after  the 
date  hereof."  The  full  account  of  his  administration  was  to 
be  made  to  the  same  official  whenever  he  was  called  upon  to 
do  so.^^ 

A  memorandum  was  then  filed  ^'that  this  day  came 
Thomas  Cornwaleys  Esq  &c  and  acknowledgeth  himselfe  to 
owe  imto  the  Lord  Proprietarie  of  this  Province  and  his 
heires  one  thousand  pound  sterhng,  to  be  levied  upon  the 
lands  goods  and  chattells  of  the  said  Thomas  Cornwaleys  &c 
The  condition  of  ths  Recognizance  is  that  if  the  said  Thomas 
Cornwaleys  shall  well  and  truely  performe  the  Commission  of 
Administration  of  the  goods  and  chattells  of  Jerome  Hawley 
late  Esq  deceased,  bearing  date  the  day  of  August  1638  in 
all  the  severall  contents  thereof,  wherewith  the  said  Thomas 
Cornwaleys  is  charged  in  the  said  Commission,  then  this 
Recognizance  to  be  void,  or  els  to  stand  in  full  force."  ^^ 

On  April  20,  1639,  Thomas  Cornwaleys  delivered  to  the 
Court  the  account  of  his  administration  of  the  goods  of 
''Jerome  Hawley  late  of  St.  Maries  Esq  deceased."  We  take 
the  liberty  of  giving  this  account  in  full  as  found  in  the  records 
of  the  Provincial  Court.    It  will  not  be  without  interest  as 

"  IV— Archives  of  Maryland,  Court,  p.  39. 
^*  Ibid.,  p.  41. 


78  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

showing  the  amount  of  Mr.  Hawley's  estate  and  containing 
the  names  of  some  of  the  earliest  colonists  of  Maryland. 
Furthermore  it  will  show  the  financial  status  of  some,  whose 
debts  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  mark  down  as  "  desperate." 

Thomas  Cornwaleys  debitor  to  the  estate  of  Jerome  Hawley 
as  foUoweth  ^ 

1  s  d 

to  goods  received,  as  p  Inventary                                    849  06  9 

to  a  debt  received  of  Thomas  Hebden                            003  12  6 

to  a  debt  received  of  John  dandie                                   003  13  3 

to  a  debt  received  of  John  Wyatt                                    000  17  0 

to  a  bill  from  Cyprian  Throughgood                               005  07  0 

to  a  bill  from  Anthony  Cotton                                        008  17  6 

to  rec  of  Capt :  Evelin  &  Company,  a  debt  of  1824 1  tob :  022  16  0 


894    06    0 


to  desperate  debts  upon  bills  as  followeth 

from  Thomas  Bradnock  &  Richard  Purhvant;  1500  1 

tob 
from  William  medcalf e  500  1  tob : 
from  Ed:  Comins  &  Tho:  Pett,  800  1  tob: 
from  Robt  Philpott,  and  Laurence  Mollock;  777  1  tob. 
from  will:  Coxe  and  John  Smith,  450  1 


totall 

p  contra  Credr 

by  expended  for  funerall  charges 

by  paid  the  tailor  for  mourning  clothes 

by  paid  in  Surgeons  bills 

by  housekeeping  defrayed  40.  daies 

by  paid  the  praisers  for  their  paines 

by  paid  mr  Lewger  for  a  debt  due  to  Tho:  Cullamore  002 

by  paid  ditto  for  a  debt  due  to  himself e 

by  paid  Leonard  Calvert  Esq  for  a  debt  due  to  him 

by  paid  Robt  Percy  for  wages 

by  paid  John  halfehead  for  work  done 

by  paid  RandoU  Revell  for  worke 

by  paid  An  Smithson  for  wages 

by  3.  bbrels  corne  paid  to  will:  Lewis 

by  paid  my  selfe  for  a  debt  due  upon  specialtie  and 

Accompt 
by  paid  to  the  Lord  Baltemore  upon  judgement 


018 

15 

0 

006 

05 

0 

010 

00 

0 

009 

14 

6 

005 

12 

6 

050 

07 

0 

944 

13 

- 

1 

s 

d 

005 

00 

0 

003 

00 

0 

005 

00 

0 

005 

00 

0 

004 

04 

0 

002 

00 

0 

001 

00 

0 

001 

06 

0 

001 

05 

0 

002 

15 

0 

000 

15 

0 

001 

04 

0 

001 

04 

0 

410 

00 

0 

234 

04 

4 

20  md.,  pp.  100-1. 


JEROME    HAWLEY   AND   THOMAS   CORNWALEYS  79 


by  paid  Andrew  Chappell  upon  judgemt 

by  paid  Edward  Brent  for  wages 

by  paid  Xpofer  Plunkett  for  wages 

by  paid  John  Cook  for  wages 

by  paid  Richard  Hill  for  wages 

by  paid  Cyprian  Throughgood  upon  judgement 

by  paid  Anthony  Cotton  upon  judgemt 

by  paid  Richard  Gardner  upon  judgemt 

by  expended  in  suits  and  Court  fees 

by  so  much  allowed  for  my  paines 

by  paid  Capt :  Evelin  &  company  for  wages  of  Edmond 

deering  002     02    0 

by  paid  Thomas  Capley.  Esq  in  part  of  a  debt  recovered 

by  judgemt  087    09    8 

by  bills  of  desperate  debts  delivered  to  the  said  mr 

Coply  toward  further  satisfaction  of  his  debt  050    07    0 


1 

s 

d 

012 

00 

0 

015 

00 

0 

005 

00 

0 

009 

00 

0 

014 

00 

0 

005 

07 

0 

015 

10 

0 

012 

10 

0 

008 

10 

0 

010 

00 

0 

944    13 

This  account  is  followed  by  a  letter  from  the  Proprietary 
approving  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Captain  discharged 
his  duties  as  administrator.     It  runs  as  follows: 

^^Cecilius  Lord  &c.  to  all  xtian  people  to  whom  these 
pnts  shall  come,  greeting.  Whereas  by  or  Ires  of  Admraon 
bearing  date  at  St.  Maries  14th  August  1638  we  did  ordeine 
&  appoint  Capt :  Thomas  Cornwaleys  Esq  &  one  of  or  Counsell 
of  or  Province  of  Maryland  to  be  Admrator  of  the  goods  & 
chattells  within  or  said  Province  wch  were  Jerome  Hawley^s 
late  of  St  Maries  Esq  deceased  at  the  time  of  his  death,  and 
bound  &  charged  him  as  well  by  his  corporall  Oath  as  by  a 
Recognisance  of  1000  pounds  sterling,  to  make  a  full  and 
perfect  Inventary  of  all  the  said  goods  and  chattells,  &  to 
render  a  faithful  and  true  Accompt  thereof  when  he  should 
be  thereunto  called  by  or  Secretary  or  had  otherwise  fully 
administred  the  same  According  whereunto  the  said  Tho: 
Cornwaleys  on  13th  September  following  made  &  delivered 
to  or  Secretary  an  Inventary  of  the  said  goods  &  chattells 
amounting  to  the  value  of  944  pounds  13  shillings  .  .  .  and 
afterward  that  is  to  say  on  20th  Aprill  1639.  brought  in  his 
Accompt  of  the  said  estate  to  or  said  Secretary  who  hath 
diligently  perused  &  examined  the  same  &  findeth  the  funeral! 
expences  &  other  charges  reasonably  defrayed  and  the  just 


80  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

debts  orderly  &  rightfully  discharged  by  the  said  Thomas 
Cornwaleys  on  the  behalfe  of  the  said  Jerome  Hawley  to 
amount  to  the  full  sunmae  of  the  estate  received,  that  is  to 
say  to  the  sunmie  of  944  pounds  13  shillings  sterling.  Know 
ye  therefore  that  we  well  approving  the  faithfulness  and 
diligence  of  the  said  Thomas  Cornwaleys,  doe  hereby  admit 
&  approve  of  his  said  Accompt,  and  signifie  &  declare  tht  the 
said  Tho.  Cornwaleys  hath  fully  administered  the  goods  & 
chattells  of  the  said  Jerome  Hawley;  And  therefore  doe 
hereby  quite  claime  &  discharge  him  of  his  aforesaid  Recog- 
nisance, &  of  all  further  Accompt  and  question  touching  the 
said  Admraon.  Witnesse  or  deare  brother  Leonard  Calvert 
Esq,  Leiutent  grail  of  or  said  Province  of  maryland.  Given 
at  St.  maries  this  29th  Aprill  1639.''  ^i 


21  lUd.,  pp.  101-2. 


CHAPTER  IX 

CORNWALEYS   AS   LEGISLATOR 

(Continued) 

Toward  the  close  of  the  eventful  year  1638,  Lord  Baltimore 
sent  word  to  the  Governor  of  his  Province  to  prepare  for 
the  Third  Assembly  of  Maryland,  which  was  to  meet  at  St. 
Mary's  on  February  25,  1638.  The  following  summons  was 
directed  to  Captain  Cornwaleys:^ 

Cecilius  Lord  Proprietary  &ca  to  our  dear  Friend 
&  Councillor  Thomas  Cornwaleys  Esqr  Greeting 
whereas  we  have  appointed  to  hold  a  General 
Assembly  of  the  Freemen  of  our  Province  at  our  Fort 
of  St.  Marys  on  the  five  and  twentieth  day  of 
February  next  we  do  therefore  hereby  will  and 
require  you  that  all  excuses  and  delays  sett  apart  you 
repair  in  Person  to  the  said  Assembly  at  the  time  and 
Place  prefixed  there  to  advise  and  Consult  with  us 
touching  the  important  affairs  of  our  Province. 

Given  at  St.  Marys  the  18th  January  1638. 

The  same  announcement  was  made  to  Mr.  Giles  Brent, 
Councillor,  Mr.  Fulk  Brent,  Mr.  Thomas  Greene  and  Mr. 
John  Boteler.  Notification  was  furthermore  sent  to  the 
freemen  of  the  various  Hundreds,  St.  Marys,  St.  Georges,  St. 
Michaels;  to  Mattapanient  and  to  Kent  Island,  to  elect  their 
Burgesses  or  Representatives  for  the  coming  session  of  the 
Assembly  which  was  done  as  directed.  ^ 

The  following  were  the  members  of  the  Assembly  that  met 
at  the  Fort  at  St.  Mary's,  on  February  25,  1638:  The  Lieu- 
tenant General,  Leonard  Calvert,  Captain  Thomas  Corn- 
waleys, Messrs  Fulk  Brent,  Giles  Brent,  Secretary  Lewger 
and  Thomas  Greene.^  The  Delegates  were:  Messrs  Gerard 
and  Gray,  for  St.   Mary's;  Wickliff  and  Rebell,  for  St. 

*  / — Archives  of  Maryland,  Assembly,  p.  27. 

^Ihid.,  pp.  27-31. 

» Note  the  absence  of  Boteler  though  invited  by  special  summons.  This 
was  the  gentleman  referred  to  in  connection  with  the  Kent  Island  disturbance. 
Streeter  remarks  that  his  former  hostility  had  been  tempered  and  the  Governor 
was  desirous  of  gaining  his  good  will  (Streeter,  Papers,  etc.,  p.  149). 

81 


82  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

Georges;  Cauther  and  Price,  for  St.  Michaels;  Bishop,  for 
Mattapanient;  and  Thomas  and  Brown,  for  Kent.^ 

Immediately  after  assembling,  ^Hhey  removed  the  As- 
sembly to  be  held  at  Saint  Johns."  ^  St.  John's  was  probably 
the  mansion  house  of  the  manor  of  St.  John's  near  the  town 
of  St.  Mary's,  reserved  for  the  Governor.^  When  the  session 
had  convened  at  this  place,  the  letter  of  the  Proprietary  was 
read.  It  was  addressed  to  Leonard  Calvert  and  gave  him 
^^fuU  Power  and  Authority"  in  the  Assembly  to  assent  to 
such  legislation  which  he  thought  good  and  necessary  for 
the  government  of  the  Province  after  it  had  passed  with  the 
approval  of  the  freemen  of  the  Province  or  of  the  majority 
of  them.  These  laws  were  to  be,  in  as  far  as  possible, 
conformable  to  the  laws  of  the  mother  country  and  were  to 
hold  till  Lord  Baltimore  or  his  heirs  should  set  them  aside.  ^ 
The  Proprietary  was  led  to  this  resolution  of  allowing  the 
governed  to  originate  their  laws  because  he  saw  that  to 
insist  on  his  right  to  suggest  the  laws  would  only  lead  to 
difficulties  that  would  retard  the  progress  of  the  colony. 
Consequently  he  decided  to  waive  his  claim  to  the  initiative 
and  to  concede  to  the  Marylanders  the  right  to  legislate  for 
themselves.  Futhermore,  the  code  already  prepared  was 
not  given  his  approval  for  this  very  reason.^ 

On  the  first  day  of  the  Assembly,  Cuthbert  Fenwick  and 
Robert  Gierke  claimed  a  voice  as  not  having  assented  to  the 
election  of  the  Burgesses  from  St.  Mary's  and  they  were 
admitted  to  membership  in  the  law-making  body.  It  seems 
that  the  two  men  rested  content  with  having  established  their 
right  for  their  presence  is  not  noted  in  the  subsequent  acts 
of  this  session.^  The  Orders  to  be  observed  during  the 
sessions  were  substantially  the  same  as  those  in  force  during 
the  Second  Assembly  with  several  new  ones.  Thus  any  late 
arrival  was  to  be  amerced  twenty  pounds  of  tobacco  which 

*  I — Archives,  p.  32. 

5  Ibid. 

*  Scharf,  History  of  Maryland,  Vol.  i,  p.  131. 
'  / — Archives,  pp.  31-2. 

*  Streeter,  Papers  relating  to  the  Early  History  of  Maryland,  p.  148. 
'  / — Archives,  p.  32;  also  Steiner,  Beginnings  of  Maryland,  p.  105. 


CORNWALEYS  AS   LEGISLATOR    (CONTINUED)  83 

was  to  be  ^'paid  to  the  use  of  the  house."  Another  ran  as 
follows:  ''After  any  Bill  hath  been  once  read  in  the  house  the 
Bill  shall  be  read  ingrossed  or  utterly  rejected  and  upon  any 
day  or  day  [sic]  appointed  for  a  Session  all  Bills  engrossed 
shall  be  put  to  the  question  and  such  as  are  assented  to  by 
the  Greater  part  of  the  house  and  if  the  Votes  be  equal  that 
shall  be  judged  the  Greater  part  which  hath  the  Consent  of 
the  Lieutenant  General  shall  be  undersigned  by  the  Secretary 
in  these  words  the  freemen  have  assented  and  after  that  the 
President  shall  be  demanded  his  assent  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  proprietary  and  if  his  assent  be  to  the  Bill,  the  Bill  shall 
be  undersigned  by  the  said  Secretary  in  these  words  the 
Lord  Proprietary  willeth  that  this  be  a  Law/'  ^° 

The  action  of  this  Assembly  was  varied  and  important. 
However,  since  no  detailed  account  is  given  as  to  the  opinions 
of  the  members  on  the  laws  as  they  were  discussed,  it  will 
suffice  to  give  briefly  the  import  of  the  legislation  effected 
which  laid  the  foundation  of  the  rehgious,  civil  and  social 
organization  of  the  Province.  The  most  important  laws 
framed  were  of  this  tenor,  that  ''Holy  Church  within  this 
province  shall  have  all  her  rights  and  priviliges,"  ^^  "The 
Lord  Proprietarie  shall  have  all  his  rights  and  prerogatives, '^ 
"The  Inhabitants  of  this  Province  shall  have  all  their  rights 
and  liberties  according  to  the  great  Charter  of  England.' ' 
Crimes  and  misdemeanors  were  defined,  and  their  penalties 
fixed,  courts  were  estabhshed  and  their  jurisdiction  deter- 
mined, inferior  officers  provided  for  and  their  oaths  of 
office  set  down,  a  military  establishment  was  ordered;  in 
short,  to  use  the  words  of  Streeter,  "the  whole  machinery  of 
government  planned  and  prepared  to  be  set  in  motion."  ^^ 
The  sessions  came  to  a  close  on  March  19,  1638. 

This  Assembly,  Hke  the  preceding,  was  not  confined  merely 
to  legislation.     Sometimes  it  assumed  the  functions  of  a 


10  I— Archives,  p.  33. 

"  Much  has  been  written  to  show  that  was  meant  by  the  phrase  "  Holy 
Church."  Briefly,  it  meant  in  this  case,  no  particular  church  provided  it  was 
a  church  that  professed  a  beUef  in  Christ. 

"  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  p.  151. 


84  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

Court  to  try  both  civil  and  criminal  cases.  An  instance  of 
the  latter  will  not  be  without  interest  as  it  shows  the  dif- 
ferent temperaments  of  the  men  who  formed  the  Assembly. 
The  proceedings  of  the  trial  itself  are  not  recorded.  We 
only  have  the  account  of  the  opinions  of  the  members  as 
to  what  punishment  was  meted  out  to  the  culprit.  The 
record  of  the  event  reads  as  follows:  ''Then  was  called  John 
Richardson  &  charged  with  flight  &  Carrying  away  the  Goods 
unlawfully  from  his  Master  &  found  Guilty  by  the  whole 
house  and  adjudged  by  the  house  to  be  whipped  three 
several  times.''  Five  were  in  favor  of  inflicting  the  penalty 
just  mentioned.  Mr.  Greene  thought  that  he  should  be 
hanged.  The  two  Brents  voted  for  whipping  him  ''very 
severely'';  the  Captain,  that  he  should  "be  whipped  pro- 
vided that  he  be  Sorrowful  for  his  fault";  and  the  Governor, 
that  he  "be  laid  in  Irons  and  whipped  three  several  times 
very  severely."  ^^ 

On  two  occasions,  namely,  on  March  1st  and  March  7th, 
Captain  Thomas  Cornwaleys  "was  amerced  for  tardie," 
twenty  pounds  of  tobacco. ^^ 

On  the  day  following  the  close  of  the  Assembly,  the  Court 
was  opened  at  St.  Mary's.  At  the  first  session,  the  various 
officers  of  the  Province  who  formed  part  of  the  same  took  the 
oaths  prescribed,  namely,  the  Oath  of  Allegiance  to  the  King 
and  the  oath  which  each  man  was  obliged  to  take  in  virtue 
of  the  office  he  held  in  the  Province.  The  oath  to  the  King 
was  defined  at  the  last  Assembly.  ^^  Thomas  Cornwaleys 
took,  besides  the  Oath  of  Allegiance,  the  one  appointed  for  a 
Counsellor.  ^^ 

On  April  25,  1639,  Governor  Calvert  issued  instructions  to 

Secretary  Lewger  to  draw  up  the  following  document:  ^^ 

These  are  to  will  and  Require  you  to  draw  a  Com- 
mission to  Captain  Thomas  Cornwaleys  Esqr  &ca 
for  the  hearing  and  determining  of  any  Civil  Causes 


13 1— Archives,  p.  37. 

"  Ibid.,  pp.  36-7. 

15  /// — Archives  of  Maryland,  Council,  p.  85. 

i»  For  the  Oath  of  a  Counsellor,  see  / — Archives,  p.  45. 

1'  /// — Archives,  p.  85. 


CORNWALEYS  AS   LEGISLATOR    (CONTINUED)  85 

hapning  during  my  Absence  from  St.  Marys  in  the 
same  manner  as  I  my  Self  might  do  by  the  Law  of 
the  Province. 

Just  how  long  this  commission  of  the  Captain  lasted  can- 
not be  stated  with  certainty.  One  month  is  the  longest 
period  during  which  it  could  have  held  force  since  we  find  in 
thejrecords  of  the  Council  that  the  Governor  was  again  at 
his  post  on  May  28th.  When  Calvert  returned,  Cornwaleys 
carriedfout  his  long  desired  plan  of  going  to  England.  Just 
when|he  set  sail  is  a  matter  of  conjecture.  On  May  29th, 
the  Lieutenant  General  issued  an  appointment  to  Giles 
Brent  as  Captain  of  the  military  forces  of  the  colony  since 
the  militia  was  ^^  destitute  of  a  Captain  to  lead  and  Command 
them  and  to  exercise  them  in  the  discipline  Military.^'  ^^ 

Just  what  took  the  Captain  to  his  native  land  has  not  come 
down  to  us.  Various  opinions  may  be  formed  however,  as 
to  his  intention.  Most  probably  he  wished  to  see  his  wife 
who  was  there.  In  his  letter  of  the  previous  year,  he  referred 
to  her  condition  being  such  as  to  indispose  her  to  manage 
his  affairs.  ^^  And  we  have  no  reference  to  her  having  come  to 
Maryland  in  the  interim.  Streeter  supposes  that  the  man- 
agement of  Hawley^s  estate  took  him  to  England.^^  In  the 
letter  of  the  Captain  referred  to,  he  also  expressed  the  wish 
to  have  an  interview  with  Cecilius  Calvert.  Whatever  may 
have  been  his  design,  his  stay  there  was  not  protracted 
beyond  a  year  and  a  half. 

During  Cornwaleys'  absence  from  the  Province,  a  session 
of  the  Legislature  convened  at  St.  John's  on  October  12, 
1640.  Previous  to  its  opening,  on  September  19,  1640,  the 
following  summons  was  issued  by  the  Governor  in  the  name 
of  the  Proprietary  to  Cuthbert  Fenwick,  Attorney  of  Corn- 
waleys: 

Caecilius  &ca  to  our  trusty  Cuthbert  Fennick  Gent 
Atty  within  this  Province  of  our  right  trusty  &ca 
Greeting  whereas  we  have  appointed  to  hold  a 
General  Assembly  at  St.  Marys  on  monday  the 


"  Ibid.,  p.  86. 

"  Calvert  Papers,  No.  i,  p.  170. 

">  Streeter,  op.  dt.,  p.  152. 


86  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

twelfth  October  next  at  which  we  could  much  have 
wished  to  have  had  the  presence  and  advice  of  our 
trusty  Counsellor  Thomas  Cornwaleys  which  being 
not  to  be  presumed  upon  by  reason  of  his  absence 
nevertheless  for  the  respect  we  bear  unto  him  and  out 
of  our  care  that  so  great  a  member  of  our  province 
may  have  his  Attorney  there  to  take  care  of  such 
things  as  may  concern  him  therefore  we  do  hereby 
authorise  you  to  repair  personally  to  the  said 
Assembly  there  to  have  place  voice  &  seat  as  our 
said  Councillors  Proctor  or  Attorney  during  his 
absence. ^^ 

In  this  Assembly,  we  find  two  new  ^^ Hundreds''  repre- 
sented, St.  Clement's  and  St.  Margaret's.  Furthermore, 
Mattapanient  had  risen  in  numbers  as  to  warrant  its  repre- 
sentation as  a  Hundred  and  was  known  as  Conception 
Hundred.  22  It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  on  the  acts  of  this 
Assembly  since  the  Captain  was  not  present  at  its  sessions. 
However,  two  acts  are  worthy  of  notice.  The  first  was  of  the 
same  import  as  one  passed  at  the  preceding  Assembly,  that 
^^Holy  Church  within  this  Province  shall  have  and  enjoy  all 
her  Rights  liberties  and  Franchises  wholy  and  without 
Blemish."  The  other  decides  who  is  to  be  chief  executive 
in  the  colony  in  case  the  Governor  should  die  or  be  absent 
from  the  Province  without  having  nominated  another  to  act 
for  him.  In  this  case  the  vacant  office  was  to  be  occupied  by 
the  first  Councillor,  who  would  then  hold  office  until  the 
return  of  the  Lieutenant  General  or  the  appointment  of 
another  by  the  Proprietary.  ^^ 

During  the  next  Assembly  which  sat  during  the  early  part 
of  the  month  of  August,  1641,  Cuthbert  Fenwick  was  still 
acting  as  Attorney  for  Cornwaleys.     At  the  next  session. 


21/ — Archives,  pp.  88-9,  Cuthbert  Fenwick  was  the  progenitor  of  two 
American  Bishops,  Rt.  Rev.  Edward  D.  Fenwick,  O.  P.,  founder  of  the 
Dominicans  in  the  United  States,  pioneer  missionary  in  Kentucky,  ^'Apostle  of 
Ohio"  and  first  Bishop  of  Cincinnati;  and  of  Rt.  Rev.  Benedict  J.  Fenwick, 
S.  J.,  second  Bishop  of  Boston.  For  a  biographical  sketch  of  Cuthbert  Fenwick, 
cf.  O'Daniel,  The  Right  Rev.  Edward  Dominic  Fenwick,  0.  P.  (Chapter  I); 
O'Daniel,  Cuthbert  Fenwick — Pioneer  Catholic  and  Legislator  of  Maryland,  in 
The  Catholic  Historical  Review,  Vol.  v,  pp.  156  et  seq.;  Davis,  The  Day-Star 
of  American  Freedom,  pp.  207  et  seq. 

22 1— Archives,  pp.  88-9. 

23  Ibid.,  p.  96. 


CORNWALEYS  AS   LEGISLATOR    (CONTINUED)  87 

which  opened  on  March  21,  1641,'  we  again  find  the  Maryland 
Counsellor  at  his  post  of  duty.  All  the  freemen  were  invited 
to  take  part.  The  reason  for  caUing  all  the  freemen  and  not 
only  the  Burgesses  was  because  most  of  the  laws  then  in  force 
had  expired,  having  been  enacted  only  temporarily.^^  The 
very  first  act  of  the  House  was  a  declaration  that  it  could  not 
be  adjourned  or  prorogued  without  its  own  consent. ^^  The 
power  of  dissolution  was  not  denied.^^ 

The  next  day  a  bill  for  an  expedition  against  the  Indians 
was  introduced.  The  text  of  this  legislation  is  not  given. 
Opposition  was  raised  to  the  same,  the  objection  being, 
that  it  was  not  to  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  Governor  and 
Counsel.2^  A  petition  was  presented  in  the  afternoon  of  the 
same  day  by  David  Wickliff  ''in  the  name  of  the  Protestant 
Cathohcks  of  Maryland.'^  Action  was  postponed  till  the 
next  morning.  The  offended  parties  complained  that  Mr. 
Thomas  Gerard  had  taken  away  the  key  to  the  chapel  and 
carried  away  several  books  from  the  same.  They  asked 
that  the  offense  be  dealt  with  as  justice  demanded.  What 
Gerard  said  in  his  defense  is  not  recorded.  Whatever  it  was, 
it  did  not  satisfy  the  House  and  he  was  found  guilty  of  a 
misdemeanor.  The  penalty  meted  out  to  him  was  to  restore 
the  key  and  the  books  and  to  reUnquish  all  title  to  them  or  to 
the  house.  A  fine  of  five  hundred  pounds  of  tobacco  was 
imposed  to  be  used  for  the  maintenance  of  the  first  minister 
that  should  arrive.  ^^ 

The  only  new  enactment  of  this  session  was  ''An  Act  for 
Granting  of  one  Subsedye. ' '  It  provided  for  the  contribution 
to  the  Proprietor  of  fifteen  pounds  of  tobacco  by  every  in- 
habitant of  the  Province,  children  under  the  age  of  twelve 
years  being  excepted.  The  act  was  unanimously  passed  and 
was  designed  as  a  token  of  gratitude  to  Lord  Baltimore  and 
as  a  remuneration  for  the  expenses  incurred  in  their  behalf.^ 


2^ /6id.,  pp.  114-5. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  117. 

*"  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  p.  166. 

^''  I— Archives,  p.  118. 

»/Wrf.,  p.  119. 

»Ihid.,p.  123.'' 


88  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

The  laws  framed  at  this  session  were  published  under  the 
Great  Seal  on  March  26,  1642. 

The  next  session  of  the  legislature  opened  on  July  18,  1642. 
The  body  consisted  of  the  Burgesses  and  others  called  by 
special  writs.  At  the  opening  of  the  same,  Robert  Vaughn,  a 
member  from  Kent  Island,  proposed  to  separate  the  House; 
one  part  to  be  made  up  of  the  Burgesses.  This  the  Governor 
refused  to  sanction.  The  separation  of  the  House  into  two 
chambers  later  became  the  law  of  the  Province.^  The 
essential  business  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  legislators, 
was  an  expedition  against  the  Indians  which  met  with  decided 
opposition.  The  Governor  then  informed  them  that  it 
was  not  his  purpose  to  ask  their  advice  or  consent  in  the 
matter.  The  power  of  making  war  rested,  in  virtue  of  the 
Charter,  with  the  chief  executive.  He  merely  wanted  to 
know  what  assistance  they  could  render  in  case  he  decided 
to  proceed  against  the  savages.  The  Secretary  then  pro- 
posed that  twenty  pounds  of  tobacco  be  levied  upon  each 
man  to  defray  the  expenses  of  such  an,  expedition.  The 
action  on  the  bill  was  postponed  and  was  not  again  brought 
up  during  the  sessions.^^  Other  legislation  dealt  chiefly  with 
judicial  matters  and  the  Assembly  came  to  a  close  on  August 
1st.  Calvert^ s  intentions  with  regard  to  punishing  the 
hostile  Indians  were  not  frustrated  by  the  opposition  of  the 
Assembly.  What  action  he  took  in  this  difficulty  will  be 
the  subject  of  a  succeeding  chapter. 

We  now  come  to  the  important  Assembly  which  began  its 
business  on  September  5, 1642.  During  the  sessions,  Thomas 
Cornwaleys  held  a  great  number  of  proxies,  on  one  day 
having  as  high  as  eleven,  and  on  another,  as  many  as  nine- 
teen. ^^  No  other  member  had  as  many  proxies  on  any  day 
of  the  sessions.  This  Assembly  was  composed  of  all  the 
freemen  of  the  Province. 

On  the  first  day,  the  Governor,  Captain  Cornwaleys,  Mr. 
Brent,  the  Secretary,  the  Surveyor,  Mr.  Weston  and  Mr. 

30  Ibid.,  p.  130. 

"76id.,  pp.  130-1. 

'2  Ibid.,  pp.  167,  172,  173,  174,  176,  180. 


CORNWALEYS   AS    LEGISLATOR    (CONTINUED)  89 

Greene  were  appointed  a  Committee  to  draw  up  a  bill 
touching  a  war  to  be  made  on  the  Indians  and  other  matters 
pertaining  to  the  safety  of  the  colony.^^  This  group  of  men 
reported  the  bill  in  the  afternoon  session.  The  Governor 
demanded  exemption  from  the  levy  of  men  provided  for  in 
the  document  submitted.  His  request  was  refused  by  a  vote 
of  one  hundred  to  thirty-eight. 

On  September  6th,  the  Governor  offered  a  measure  for 
the  repeal  of  all  laws  enacted  at  the  preceding  Assembly.  The 
same  committee  mentioned  above  was  appointed,  with  the 
exception  that  Mr.  Weston's  seat  was  to  be  occupied  by 
Mr.  WhitcUff,  to  draw  up  other  suggestions  for  the  safety  of 
the  colony.  In  the  afternoon  of  the  same  day,  the  Captain 
was  named  as  one  of  a  committee  of  eight  to  consider  bills 
to  be  propounded  on  the  next  day  that  the  body  met.^"* 

The  committee,  at  the  time  appointed,  submitted  several 
bills  among  which  was  one  providing  for  officers.  This  had 
been  construed  as  giving  the  Governor  power  to  compel  a 
freeman  to  serve  in  such  offices  as  that  official  was  pleased 
to  bestow,  provided  a  reasonable  fee  was  allowed.  Corn- 
waleys  and  Brent  offered  a  determined  opposition  to  the 
passage  of  this  law,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  unnecessary. 
Besides  it  gave  away  their  liberties  and  was  unlimited  in 
giving  the  Governor  a  right  to  force  men  to  the  office  of 
Sheriff,  as  well  as  others,  thus  ^^  against  common  right  and 
decency  compelling  men  to  be  hangmen."  Calvert  was 
wiUing  to  make  a  concession  with  regard  to  compelUng 
anyone  to  become  an  executioner.^^  The  bill  was,  however, 
defeated.^® 

On  the  morning  of  September  12,  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee was  read  before  the  assembled  freemen.  Twenty-five 
bills  were  proposed.  A  provision  was  made  by  the  Com- 
mittee that  the  laws  should  last  for  three  years.  To  this 
Calvert  objected.  When  the  question  was  submitted  to 
discussion,  it  was  found  that  twenty-six  ^Voices''  were  in 

33  Ibid.,  p.    171. 

« Ibid.,  pp.  174-5. 
« Ibid.,  p.  175. 
"/Wd.,p.  179. 


90  THOMAS    CORNWALEYS 

favor  of  the  legislation  enduring  till  the  first  meeting  of  the 
next  Assembly.  Among  the  voters  were  the  Governor,  who 
held  three  votes  and  the  Secretary,  with  four.  Forty-six 
were  in  favor  of  the  laws  having  their  force  till  the  first 
meeting  of  the  next  Assembly  with  the  proviso  that,  in  case 
none  were  called  before  the  lapse  of  three  years,  they  were 
to  hold  for  that  period  of  time.  Captain  Cornwaleys  and 
Mr.  Brent,  with  their  proxies,  voted  that  they  should  have 
their  vigor  for  three  years.  In  the  afternoon  the  question 
was  again  discussed.  The  voting  resolved  itself  to  two 
opinions.  That  they  should  endure  for  three  years  or  else 
to  the  next  meeting  of  the  Assembly  in  case  one  was  called 
within  that  time,  was  favored  by  the  Governor,  Mr.  Secretary, 
Mr.  Surveyor,  Mr.  Binks,  Thomas  Hebden  and  Mr.  Weston, 
for  themselves  and  their  proxies.  That  they  should  last 
^^for  three  years  certain''  was  championed  by  Captain 
Cornwaleys,  Mr.  Brent,  Mr.  Greene,  Nicholas  Hervey, 
RandoU  Rebell,  John  Medley,  Francis  Posie  and  Nicholas 
Cosin,  for  themselves  and  their  proxies,  who  carried  their 
point.^^ 

On  September  13th,  the  last  day  of  this  Assembly,  the  Bill 
for  an  Expedition  against  the  Indians  again  came  before  the 
House.  It  was  passed  by  all,  except  that  Captain  Corn- 
waleys with  '^fifteen  of  his  Proxies  of  St.  Michaels  hundred'' 
voted  against  it  by  reason  of  the  clause  exempting  the  ser- 
vants of  the  Governor.^^  Twenty-five  Acts  were  pubhshed 
after  this  Assembly  ^^at  St.  Maries  under  the  Great  Scale, 
the  fifteenth  day  of  September  1642."  It  is  worthy  to  note 
that  after  each  is  added  ''This  Act  to  endure  for  three  years 
from  this  present  day."  ^^ 

During  the  session  of  the  Assembly  which  had  just  closed, 
Cornwaleys  and  Brent  had  stirred  up  considerable  opposition 
to  various  measures.  This  fact  did  not  prevent  the  Governor 
from  bestowing  upon  both  men  responsible  public  appoint- 
ments.    When  called  upon  they  were  ever  ready  to  give 

37  Ibid.,  pp.  177-9. 

38  Ibid.,  p.  182. 

39  Ibid.,  pp.  182-198. 


CORNWALEYS   AS    LEGISLATOR    (CONTINUED)  91 

their  services  to  the  Colony  unselfishly.  An  exception  must 
be  made  to  this  last  statement  in  the  case  of  the  Captain. 
On  the  records  of  the  Provincial  Court  we  find  the  following 
entry  for  September  16,  1642-,  the  day  following  the  pubUca- 
tion  of  the  Acts  of  the  Assembly:  ''Captaine  Thomas  Corn- 
waleys  Esq  being  demanded  to  take  the  Oath  of  a  Counsellor 
absolutely  refused  to  be  in  Commission  or  to  take  the 
Oath/^  The  reasons  for  this  unexpected  procedure  are 
not  given.  Taken  in  connection  with  the  course  he  followed 
in  the  Assembly,  it  affords  strong  ground  for  the  inference 
that  the  friendly  relations  between  Calvert  and  Cornwaleys 
were  disturbed.  Since  the  Captain,  however,  was  ever 
wilUng  to  render  every  service  in  his  power  to  the  colony  in 
other  capacities,  we  think  that  his  refusal  to  ^^be  in  Com- 
mission'^ was  due  to  dissatisfaction  with  the  legislative 
proceedings. 


CHAPTER  X 
Indian  Disturbances 

From  the  foundation  of  the  town  of  St.  Mary's,  the 
Maryland  settlers  strove  to  live  on  friendly  terms  with  the 
aboriginal  inhabitants.  Amicable  relations  were  the  order 
of  the  day.  The  object  of  Lord  Baltimore  in  using  every 
means  in  his  power  to  conciliate  the  tribes  was  chiefly  to 
civiHze  them  and  to  bring  to  the  benighted  children  of  the 
forest  the  light  of  the  Gospel.  From  the  annual  letters  of 
the  Jesuits  we  receive  glowing  accounts  of  the  success  of  the 
missionaries.  Several  chieftains  were  won  over  from  false 
worship  to  the  cult  of  the  one  true  God.  Following  the 
example  of  their  leaders  many  of  the  savages  embraced  the 
true  faith.  In  fact,  the  early  days  of  the  colony  were 
singularly  free  from  hostile  demonstration  on  the  part  of 
the  Indians. 

There  were  other  tribes  hving  on  the  frontiers  of  the 
Province  who  were  inimical  not  only  to  the  colonists  but  to 
the  Indians  who  were  the  friends  of  the  settlers.  With 
these,  Governor  Calvert  had  to  reckon.  The  cause  of  their 
hostiUty  was  chiefly  due  to  the  intrusion  of  the  colonists. 
The  Piscatoway  and  Patuxent  tribes  were  the  friends  of  the 
Marylanders.  The  Susquehanocks  were  the  enemies  of 
both  the  Indian  and  EngUsh  inhabitants  of  Maryland.  They 
were  the  principal  enemies  with  which  the  colonists  had  to 
deal.  Some  eastern  shore  Indians  also  acted  in  a  manner  as 
to  render  it  necessary  to  adopt  measures  to  repel  them. 

As  early  as  May  28,  1639,  the  Governor  and  Council  saw 
fit  to  arm  the  colonists  for  repelling  any  attack  on  the  part  of 
the  Indians  of  the  eastern  shore.  ^  The  Susquehanocks  were 
also  mentioned  in  this  proclamation.  For  further  protection, 
it  was  thought  wise  to  arm  the  colonists,  particularly  those 
living  about  St.  Mary's,  for  purposes  of  defence.  Mr.  Giles 
Brent  was  appointed  on  May  29,   1639,   Captain  of  the 


^  /// — Archives  of  Maryland,  Council,  p.  85. 
92 


INDIAN   DISTURBANCES  93 

military  forces,  next  in  rank  to  the  Governor,  and  was 
ordered  to  train  the  inhabitants  in  martial  exercises.^  He 
was  also  directed  to  provide  for  arms  and  ammunition.  In 
this  commission  to  Brent,  Leonard  Calvert  refers  to  the 
absence  of  Captain  Cornwaleys.  From  the  Governor's 
words,  it  is  evident  that,  had  Cornwaleys  been  available,  he 
would  undoubtedly  have  been  his  choice  for  the  post.  The 
reason  of  Cornwaleys  not  being  able  to  assume  the  charge  was 
due  to  his  preparations  for  his  visit  to  England  described  in  a 
previous  chapter.  Up  to  this  time,  he  had  been  looked  to  as 
the  main  reliance  of  the  colonists  in  their  encounters  with  the 
natives  or  other  enemies. 

Strict  injunctions  were  issued  to  the  settlers  that  no 
weapons  were  to  be  sold  to  the  savages.  Parties  were  sent 
to  punish  the  marauding  Maquantequats.^  The  old  friends 
of  the  colony,  the  Patuxents,  were,  by  a  public  proclamation 
on  January  24,  1639,  declared  under  the  protection  of  the 
English,  and  all  persons  were  forbidden  to  do  them  violence.* 

When  the  Susquehanocks  on  the  north,  and  the  Wicomeses 
and  Nanticokes  on  the  east,  made  inroads  on  the  territory 
of  the  Marylanders,  Calvert  found  it  necessary  to  issue 
another  proclamation,  on  July  10,  1641.^  In  it,  he  obliged 
the  settlers  to  be  on  their  guard  against  the  Indians.  Any 
person  who  harbored  a  savage  was  amenable  to  martial  law. 
Besides,  he  authorized  the  people  of  Kent  to  shoot  any  Indian 
that  should  make  his  appearance  on  the  island.^ 

Since  the  Indians  about  Maryland  continued  their  hos- 
tihties,  probably  with  increased  violence,  it  was  deemed 
advisable  to  introduce  a  rigorous  mihtary  discipline  among  the 
inhabitants  than  had  hitherto  been  practised.  Accordingly, 
certain  orders  were  promulgated,  on  June  23,  1642,  ^'upon 
pain  of  death  or  other  penalties,  as  by  Severity  of  Martiall 
Law  may  be  inflicted'': 


2  Ibid.,  p.  86. 

3  Ihid.,  p.  87. 
*  lUd. 

'  Ibid. 

« Streeter,  Papers  relating  to  the  Early  History  of  Maryland,  p.  102;  also  Ill- 
Archives,  p.  98. 


94  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

That  noe  Inhabitant  or  housekeeper  entertain  any- 
Indian  upon  any  colour  of  License,  nor  doe  permit 
to  any  Indian  any  Gunn  powder  and  Shott. 

That  all  housekeepers  provide  fixed  gunn  and 
Sufficient  powder  and  Shott  for  each  person  able  to 
bear  arms. 

Noe  man  to  discharge  three  Gunns  within  the  space 
of  one  quarter  of  an  hour  nor  concurr  to  the  discharge- 
ing  Soe  many,  except  to  give  or  Answer  alarm. 

Upon  the  hearing  of  an  Alarum  every  housekeeper 
to  answer  and  continue  it  Soe  far  as  he  may. 

Noe  man  able  to  bear  arms  to  goe  to  church  or 
Chappell  or  any  considerable  distance  from  home 
without  fixed  gunn  and  one  Charge  at  least  of  powder 
and  Shott. 

Of  these  every  one  required  to  take  notice  upon 
pain  of  Content,  for  better  execution,  the  Serjt  to 
inform  the  Lieutent  Governor  or  Captaine.^ 

On  August  18,  1642,  Captain  Cornwaleys  was  again  placed 
in  charge  of  military  operations  in  the  colony.  His  com- 
mission made  him  Captain  General  of  the  army.  The  same 
was  issued  'Ho  leavie  men  and  Command  them,  and  use  ^,11 
power  and  means  conduceing  in  his  discretion  to  the 
resistance  and  Castigacon  of  the  enemies  and  vanquishing 
of  them  in  as  full  and  ample  manner  as  any  Capt  General  of 
any  army  may,  and  requiring  all  officers  and  soldiers  &c  to 
be  obedient  and  asssitant  to  him  upon  paines  as  may  be 
Inflicted  by  Martiall  Law.'^  « 

At  this  juncture,  one  of  the  settlements  at  Piscataway  was 
attacked,  the  inhabitants  murdered,  and  a  large  amount  of 
plunder  carried  away.  Even  the  Jesuit  missionaries,  devoted 
and  fearless  as  they  were,  began  seriously  to  think  of  aban- 
doning their  station,  and  establishing  themselves  at  Potu- 
paco  (Port  Tobacco),  which  was  less  exposed  to  the  ravages 
of  the  cruel  and  ever  active  Susquehanocks.  On  the  east  also, 
the  savages  had  begun  their  bloody  work.  Even  the  peace- 
ful Patuxents,  so  long  the  friends  of  the  Marylanders,  showed 
signs  of  an  aggressive  and  hostile  spirit.^    This  action  seems 

7  III— Archives,  p.  103. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  106. 


» Ibid.,  p.  106. 

'  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  pp.  167-8. 


INDIAN   DISTURBANCES  95 

to  have  been  the  result  of  the  Governor's  determination 
despite  the  opposition  of  the  Assembly  to  undertake  an 
expedition  against  the  Indians. ^° 

Five  days  after  Cornwaleys'  appointment,  Calvert  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  Governor  Berkeley  of  Virginia.  The 
message  recounts  the  aggressions  of  the  savages.  Five 
Virginians  and  eight  Marylanders  had  been  barbarously 
massacred.  For  the  vindication  of  the  ^^  Honour  of  our 
Nation"  and  to  avenge  the  murder  of  the  colonists,  he  asks 
Berkeley  to  furnish  one  hundred  men,  well  armed,  to  meet 
the  same  number  of  the  Maryland  forces.  On  October  1st, 
they  are  to  meet  at  Kent  Island  and  together  to  inflict 
condign  chastisement  on  their  insolent  and  merciless  ene- 
mies. ^^  As  a  measure  of  precaution,  Henry  Bishop  was 
authorized  to  take  command  of  the  fort  at  Patuxent,  which 
was  to  be  a  place  of  rendezvous  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
vicinity  in  case  of  danger.  ^^  Furthermore,  notice  was 
issued  on  August  28th,  providing  for  the  safety  of  the 
settlers  in  case  of  any  sudden  attack,  and  indicating  the 
strongholds  within  prescribed  districts,  to  which  women  and 
children  could  fly  for  protection. ^^  Finally  the  following 
was  pubhshed: 

Proclamation  By  the  Lieutent  Generall 

These  are  to  publish  and  declare  that  the  Sesqui- 
hanowes,  Wicomeses,  and  Nantacoque  Indians,  are 
enemies  of  this  Province,  and  as  such  are  to  be 
reputed  &  proceeded  against  by  all  persons.  Given 
at  St  Maries  Sept  13th  1642 

Leonard  Calvert  ^* 

On  September  13,  1642,  the  bill  was  passed  for  an  expedi- 
tion against  the  Indians.  This  act  empowered  the  Governor, 
or  any  Captain  or  Captains  under  him,  to  organize  an  expe- 
dition against  the  Susquehanocks,  or  any  Indians  who  had 
participated  in  the  late  ravages  in  the  colony.     It  authorized 

^°  / — Archives  of  Maryland,  Assembly,  p.  130. 
"  III— Archives,  p.  106. 
12  Ibid.,  p.  107. 

"  Ibid.,  p.  U6. 


96  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

him  to  take  out  of  every  county  or  hundred,  every  third  man 
able  to  bear  arms.  The  Governor  and  his  servants  were 
exempted  from  being  reckoned  in  any  hundred  ^'to  any 
purpose  of  this  Act."  It  was  this  phrase  to  which,  as  we 
have  seen  in  the  previous  chapter,  Cornwaleys  offered  an 
objection.  The  various  hundreds  were  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  arming  and  otherwise  equipping  the  men. 
Provisions  were  to  be  suppHed  in  the  same  way.  The 
freemen  of  the  hundreds  were  to  judge  the  number  of  men 
and  the  amount  of  ammunition,  food,  etc.,  to  be  contributed 
by  them.^^ 

Though  Governor  Calvert  was  convinced  of  the  grave 
necessity  of  an  expedition  against  the  Indian  marauders  for 
the  welfare  and  even  the  existence  of  the  Colony,  and 
pressed  his  designs  with  dogged  earnestness,  various  cir- 
cumstances arose  to  thwart  his  plans.  The  letter  addressed 
by  him  to  the  Governor  of  Virginia  in  the  latter  part  of 
August,  did  not  reach  James  City  until  October  5th,  when 
it  was  at  once  put  before  the  Council.  That  body,  on  con- 
sideration, decided  to  send  an  answer  to  Calvert,  stating 
that  it  was  ^  impossible  to  comply  with  his  request,  as  many 
of  the  inhabitants  were  about  to  remove  to  new  plantations, 
and  were  hardly  able  to  get  arms  and  ammunition  to  defend 
themselves;  and  those  remaining  upon  the  old  plantations, 
not  having  a  supply  of  military  provisions,  besides  the  heavy 
hand  of  God's  visitation  upon  the  plantations  generally,  of 
which  few  have  recovered.''  ^^ 

The  resources  of  the  Marylanders  were  so  scanty  that  it 
seemed  almost  an  act  of  folly  to  attempt  to  organize  an 
expedition  against  such  powerful  foes,  with  means  so  limited. 
The  people,  moreover,  were  not  minded  to  undergo  the 
hazard  and  exposure  consequent  upon  a  winter's  campaign. 
Besides,  they  were  filled  with  dismay  at  the  prospect  of  a 
great  debt  accumulating,  in  case  of  a  protracted  Indian  war 
and  they  were  more  strongly  disposed  to  bear  their  hard  lot 


15  / — Archives,  pp.  196-7. 

1^  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  quoting  Virginia  Records, 


p.  178. 


INDIAN   DISTURBANCES  97 

than  to  risk  the  possibihty  of  being  subjected  to  evils  that 
would  eventuate  from  such  an  undertaking.^^  Calvert, 
nevertheless,  issued  a  proclamation  on  January  17,  1642, 
announcing  his  purpose  of  providing  by  all  possible  care  and 
dihgence  to  provide  for  the  safety  of  the  Province,  not  only 
from  all  danger  of  the  Indians,  but  ''from  feare  of  any.'^ 
The  colonists  were  authorized  to  kill  any  Indian,  who  should 
show  himself,  by  land  or  water,  without  a  white  flag,  within 
a  district  about  the  Patuxent  River.  ^^  The  Indians  were  to 
be  forewarned  of  the  Governor's  intent,  by  sending  a  mes- 
senger to  the  neighboring  tribes  to  warn  them  not  to  ap- 
proach that  territory  without  showing  the  prescribed  flag. 
On  December  16,  1642,  the  Governor  sent  out  notice  of 
his  intention  of  holding  an  Assembly  on  February  3rd,  but  on 
February  1st,  he  decided  that  the  session  could  not  take 
place. ^^  One  reason  for  this  was  Calvert's  earnest  wish  to 
strike  a  blow  at  the  savages,  and  his  conviction  that  a  meet- 
ing of  the  legislature  would  interfere  with  his  intent.^^  He 
had  no  doubt  been  in  consultation  with  Captain  Cornwaleys 
on  the  subject.  The  Captain  had  decided  to  undertake  an 
expedition  and  on  January  23rd,  he  received  a  formal 
commission  to  this  effect.  ^^  The  settlers  were  by  no  means 
as  keen  as  the  Governor  on  this  matter,  and  had  shown 
themselves  disinclined  to  enlist  in  such  an  undertaking. 
The  name  of  Cornwaleys  was,  however,  a  tower  of  strength, 
and  with  a  view  of  gaining  the  good-will  of  the  people  and  of 
urging  them  forward,  Calvert,  after  issuing  the  Captain's 
commission,  pubhshed  the  following  proclamation: 

By  the  Leiutent  Generall. 
whereas  I  understand  of  divers  jealousies  and 
feares  abroad  in  the  colony  touching  the  Indians,  and 
the  expectation  of  a  great  charge  &  hindrance  this 
yeare  either  in  making  a  march  upon  them,  or  in 
guard  against  them,  to  the  disanimation  of  the 
people,  and  foreslowing  their  usuall  diligence  & 
alacrity  in  proceeding  in  their  labours  for  the  next 

"  Ibid.,  p.  178. 

18  III— Archives,  p.  126. 

^^  I— Archives,  p.  201. 

20  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  p.  180. 

«  III— Archives,  p.  127. 


98  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

cropp,  for  remedie  whereof  and  to  assure  them  of 
what  consideration  is  had  of  their  safeties  &  ease,  I 
thought  fitt  to  pubHsh  &  declare  hereby  that  all 
possible  diligence  is  &  shalbe  used  for  the  furnishing 
the  country  with  ammunition,  and  that  (as  soon  as 
conveniently  may  be)  there  shalbe  an  expedition 
sett  forth  against  the  Indian  enemies  of  this  Province, 
at  the  sole  charge  of  his  Lop  (excepting  the  psons 
of  the  souldiers  to  make  the  expedition  withall,  for 
whose  service  only  the  country  shalbe  charged)  and 
that  Capt.  Cornwaleys  Esq  is  appointed  &  hath 
undertaken  to  goe  as  Generall  of  the  said  expedition, 
to  whom  I  have  given  all  purchase  plunder  that 
shalbe  made  upon  the  enemy  during  the  said 
expedition,  to  be  by  him  disposed  of  for  the  encour- 
agemt  of  voluntiers,  that  will  sett  themselves  forth 
&  serve  at  their  owne  charge,  and  for  the  reward  of 
his  souldiers  as  he  shall  find  them  to  deserve.  And 
further  for  the  greater  encouragemt  and  reliefe  of 
those  that  shall  goe  upon  this  service,  I  will  use  all 
circumspection  that  may  be  that  the  said  expedition 
shalbe  so  made,  and  (by  God's  helpe)  performed  that 
it  shalbe  no  considerable  hindrance  to  any  ones 
cropp :  and  that  the  debts  of  those  whose  pnt  abilities 
will  not  reach  to  the  satisfying  of  their  credrs,  with- 
out greivous  pressure  and  disabling  them  for  their 
necessary  subsistence  for  the  future,  I  will  use 
meanes  with  their  Credrs  (if  they  be  inhabitants  of 
this  Prov:)  to  forbeare  untill  the  next  yeare,  wch  I 
have  already  assurance  of  from  some  of  the  chiefest. 
Given  at  St  maries  23.  Jan:  22 

Three  days  after  the  promulgation  of  the  above,  the 
license  given  on  January  17th,  to  kill  any  Indian  coming 
within  certain  limits  of  the  colony,  was  revoked,  except  with 
regard  to  such  Indians  known  to  belong  either  to  the 
Susquehanocks  or  Wicomeses.  Public  notice  was  also 
given  that  a  treaty  of  peace  with  the  Nanticokes  was  in 
negotiation.  In  order  to  arrange  the  details  of  the  pact,  a 
truce  of  six  weeks  was  declared,  during  which  these  Indians 
were  under  his  Lordship's  protection.^^  In  regard  to  the 
excepted  tribes,  every  effort  was  to  be  brought  into  play  to 
subdue  them.     But  there  were  great  obstacles  to  be  sur- 

^Ibid.  '     / 

"  Ibid.,  p.  128. 


INDIAN   DISTURBANCES  99 

mounted.  The  inhabitants  were  not  in  sympathy  with  the 
movement.  There  was  a  great  scarcity  of  arms  and  ammu- 
nition. Besides,  the  expenses  necessary  for  the  undertaking 
were  not  forthcoming.  By  the  8th  of  April,  1643,  Leonard 
Calvert  decided  to  abandon  his  plans  for  the  punishment  of 
the  savages  and  announced  his  intention  in  the  following 
notice: 

Whereas  by  a  Proclamation  bearing  date  at  St. 
Maries  the  23.  January  last  upon  certaine  hopes 
then  presumed  upon  of  meanes  to  goe  a  march  upon 
the  Sesquihanowes  I  did  declare  to  the  colony  that 
there  should  be  an  expedition  sett  forth  at  his  Lops 
charge,  with  other  things  therein  conteined;  wch 
meanes  being  not  yet  found  answerable  to  my  hopes 
I  doe  think  fitt  to  advise  further  of  the  intended 
expedition;  &  therefore  doe  hereby  annull  &  revoke 
the  said  pclamation,  &  the  obligations  therein  under- 
taken on  his  Lops  behalf e;  &  all  powers  and  Commis- 
sions therein  given  touching  or  concerning  the  said 
expedition  untill  I  have  further  considered  there- 
upon.2^ 

Aside  from  the  reasons  assigned  in  this  proclamation,  the 
principal  motive  seems  to  have  been  the  sudden  determination 
of  the  Governor  to  sail  for  England.  In  fact,  three  days 
after,  he  appointed  Giles  Brent  to  act  with  full  powers  as 
Governor  during  his  absence.^^ 

After  the  departure  of  the  Governor,  the  Council  deter- 
mined to  organize  a  company  of  ten  good  marksmen,  and 
post  them,  as  a  garrison,  fully  armed  and  equipped,  on 
Palmer's  Island.  They  were  to  keep  close  watch  on  the 
movements  of  the  Susquehanocks,  whose  fort  was  a  few  miles 
above  the  mouth  of  the  Susquehanna  River.  They  were  to 
prevent  these  savages  from  proceeding  down  the  bay  to 
make  an  attack  upon  the  unprotected  frontiers  of  the  colony.  ^^ 

Governor  Brent  then  issued  a  commission  to  Captain 
Cornwaleys  as  Captain  General  of  the  army.  He  was 
empowered  to  take  charge  of  all  military  operations  on  land 
and  water  within  the  County  of  St.  Mary's.     He  was  to  use 


24  Ibid.,  p.  130. 

^Ibid. 

26  Ibid.,  p.  134. 


100  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

all  means  possible  for  levying  soldiers.  Mutinies  were  to 
be  punished.  Any  enemies  were  to  be  dealt  with  as  occasion 
demanded.  In  a  word,  he  was  to  use  his  discretion  toward 
the  protection  of  the  inhabitants  to  the  fullest  extent  of 
power  vested  in  a  Captain  General.^^ 

Ever  since  the  Marylanders  landed  at  St.  Mary's  and  took 
under  their  protection  the  Yaocomeses,  the  Patuxents  and 
the  Piscataways,  and  other  neighboring  tribes,  they  reassured 
the  disheartened  children  of  the  forest  by  offering  such  pro- 
tection as  they  could  afford  against  the  conquests  and 
plunderings  of  the  fierce  Susquehanocks.  These  Indians,  as 
well  as  the  colonists  from  time  to  time,  had  to  fear  the  sudden 
inroads  and  murders  of  those  savages.  At  one  time,  rein- 
forced by  some  of  the  Wicomeses,  they  came  in  canoes  down 
the  bay,  and  landing  at  Kent,  robbed  or  murdered  the 
most  exposed  inhabitants.  Again,  moving  swiftly  up  the 
Patuxent,  they  made  deadly  attacks  upon  the  planters 
scattered  along  the  neck  formed  by  that  river  and  the 
Potomac.  At  another  time,  their  fierce  war  parties,  prepared 
for  deeds  of  blood,  followed  their  course  in  a  southwest 
direction  over  the  upper  waters  of  Patapsco,  and,  suddenly 
emerging  from  the  forest,  fell  upon  the  defenceless  settlers 
who  inhabited  the  region  at  the  head  of  the  Piscataway.  No 
place  was  secure  from  their  attack.  No  mercy  was  to  be 
expected  when  they  appeared  on  the  scene.^^ 

No  wonder  then,  that  a  man  of  strong  sympathies  and  of 
pubUc  spirit,  hke  Captain  Cornwaleys,  should  have  his 
sympathy  moved  and  his  wrath  aroused  at  the  tales  of 
cruelty  and  wrong  inflicted  by  these  murderers.  Little 
wonder  then,  that  he  was  determined  to  retaUate  and  to 
inflict  punishment  on  these  savages,  to  teach  them,  if  such  a 
thing  were  possible,  to  respect  the  lives  and  the  homes  of  the 
innocent  colonists.  Accordingly  he  made  the  strong  resolve 
to  throw  the  weight  of  his  own  popularity  into  the  balance. 
Casting  aside  all  reliance  on  the  law  to  force  enlistment  of 


^"^  Ibid. 

28  Streeter,  op.  cU.,  p.  186-7. 


INDIAN   DISTURBANCES  101 

men,  he  determined  to  count  entirely  upon  a  sufficient 
number  of  volunteers  who  were  wilHng  to  go  with  him  on  such 
an  expedition  as  he  had  planned,  relying  on  his  courage  and 
capacity  to  carry  his  designs  to  success.  In  order  to  proceed, 
he  sought  and  obtained  the  consent  of  Governor  Brent,  who 
gave  his  approval  by  the  following  authorization: 

Whereas  we  are  informed  of  your  propenseness  to 
go  a  march  upon  the  Sesquihanowes,  and  that 
several  volunteers,  to  a  considerable  number,  are 
willing  and  desirous  to  be  led  out  by  you  upon  such  a 
march  upon  certain  conditions  treated  and  agreed 
between  you  and  them,  We,  approving  very  well  of 
such  your  and  their  forwardness  for  the  vindication 
of  the  honour  of  God  and  the  Christian  and  the 
English  name,  upon  these  barbarous  and  inhuman 
Pagans,  do  hereby  authorize  you  to  levy  all  such  men 
as  shall  be  willing  to  go  upon  the  said  march,  and  to 
lead  and  conduct  them  against  the  Sesquihanowes  or 
other  Indian  enemies  of  the  Province,  in  such  time 
and  manner  as  you  shall  think  fit.^^ 

Just  when  and  how  the  Captain  carried  out  his  plan  of 
warfare  with  the  Indians,  the  scant  records  of  the  time  do 
not  inform  us.  From  a  work  pubUshed  a  few  years  after  the 
events  here  chronicled,  on  an  entirely  different  subject,  we 
can  arrive  at  a  few  facts,  which  throw  some  light  on  this 
interesting  affair.^^ 

The  author  of  this  book  statesjthat  the  Swedes,  then 
settled  on  the  Delaware,  and  by  no  means  favorably  dis- 
posed toward  the  English  settlements,  had  sold  arms  and 
ammunition  to  the  savages.  Besides,  they  had  hired  out 
three  of  their  men  to  the  Susquehanocks,  who  trained  the 
tribes  in  the  methods  of  European  warfare.  They  had, 
moreover,  led  the  savage  band  into  Maryland  and  Virginia, 
and  assisted  them  to  take  the  chief  of  the  Potomacs  prisoner 
and  to  subdue  eight  Indian  tribes  in  Maryland,  who  had 
been  civilized  and  won  over  to  the  English  rule.  According 
to  the  writer,  the  Susquehanocks  with  their  auxiUaries,  the 


2«  Ibid.,  p.  188. 

^  Plantagenet,  A  Description  of  the  Province  of  New   Albion,   American 
Colonial  Tracts,  No\.  u.  No.  6,  p.  17. 


102  THOMAS   CORN  WALE  YS 

Ihonadoes  and  Wicomeses,  to  the  number  of  two  hundred 
and  fifty,  sprang  upon  the  colonists  of  Maryland.  Three 
Englishmen  were  killed  and  one  Indian.  Captain  Corn- 
waleys,  ^'that  noble,  right  vaHant  and  poUtic  soldier,^' 
losing  but  one  more  man,  killed,  with  fifty- three  raw  and  tired 
Marylanders,  twenty-nine  savages.^^  Yet  this  severe  chas- 
tisement did  not  seem  to  suffice.  According  to  Streeter,  the 
Captain  made  one  or  more  expeditions  subsequent  to  this, 
which  must  have  ended  in  disaster. ^^ 

On  June  18,  1644,  a  commission  was  issued  to  Captain 
Henry  Fleete,  who  was  to  go  to  the  fort  at  Piscataway,  to 
negotiate  with  a  deputation  from  the  Susquehanocks.  In 
the  instructions  given  to  Fleete,  one  article  especially  directed 
him  to  obtain  the  restitution  of  ''as  much  as  you  can  gett  of 
the  armes  &  other  goods  lost  or  left  in  our  last  march  upon 
them,  at  least  the  two  feild  pieces."  He  was  furthermore 
authorized  to  conclude  peace  with  these  Indians  to  the 
honor,  safety  and  advantage  of  the  EngHsh.^^ 

Before  Leonard  Calvert  sailed  for  England,  relations  be- 
tween him  and  Captain  Cornwaleys  were  not  as  cordial  as 
could  have  been  desired.  The  reason  was  likely  due  to  the 
conduct  of  the  late  Assembly  and  the  subsequent  resigna- 
tion of  the  Captain  from  his  Counsel.  Another  event  that 
transpired  about  this  time  did  not  by  any  means  serve  to 
better  matters  in  this  regard. 

On  April  12,  1642,  a  commission  was  appointed  by  Lord 
Baltimore,  consisting  of  Leonard  Calvert,  John  Lewger  and 
John  Langford,  to  buy  from  Father  Copley  a  certain  house 
and  some  land  connected  with  it.  This  house  is  referred  to 
as  the  ''Chappell  House."  ^^  Thomas  Cornwaleys  was  the 
representative  whom  Father  Copley  appointed  to  act  for 
him.^^  The  details  of  this  negotiation  are  given  in  the  records 
of  the  Provincial  Court. 


31  Streeter,  op.  ciL,  p.  188-9. 

33  III— Archives,  pp.  148-9. 

34 IV — Archives  of  Maryland,  Court,  p.  292. 

35  Ibid.,  p.  266. 


INDIAN    DISTURBANCES  103 

At  the  instance  of  Capt  Tho :  Cornwaleys  Esq,  the 
Leiutent  Grail  interrogated  Mr  Secretary,  upon  oath 
whether  he  together  with  L.  G.  [sic]  &  J.  L.  were 
appointed  by  instruction  from  the  right  noble 
honorable  the  Lord  Baltemore  &c  to  purchase  for 
his  Lop  of  mr  Copley  a  certaine  house  &  land 
appteining  called  the  Chappell  house;  And  whether 
did  he  purchase  it  or  no  in  his  Lops  name  &  for  his 
Lops  use  for  the  price  of  200  1  sterling  payable  in 
Engl:  by  bill  of  exchange,  &  whether  he  were  not 
ordered  to  charge  bills  of  Exchange  upon  his  Lop  for 
the  purchase.  And  to  this  Interrogatory  mr 
Secretary  saith  upon  his  oath,  that  to  the  best  of  his 
remembrance  he  this  deponent  and  Leonard  Calvert 
&  John  Langford  Esqrs,  were  appointed  by  In- 
struction from  his  said  Lop  to  purchase  for  his  Lop 
the  chappell  house  at  reasonable  price;  but  whether 
the  land  appteining  to  it  he  remembreth  not;  &  that 
they  had  order  from  his  Lop  (in  default  of  other 
wayes  to  raise  meanes  for  the  purchase)  to  charge 
bill  of  exchange  for  it  upon  his  Lop  in  England;  and 
that  they  did  purchase  to  the  use  of  his  Lop  the  said 
house  &  land  appteining  to  it,  &  some  other  land 
adjoining,  of  the  said  mr  Copley  (or  of  the  said 
Thomas  Cornwaleys  or  of  Cutbert  ffennick  [Fenwick] 
in  the  right  &  to  the  benefitt  of  the  said  mr  Copley) 
for  the  price  of  200  1  sterling,  certifie  under  great 
Seale  28.  March  1644.^^ 

On  various  occasions,  as  the  accounts  of  the  proceedings  in 
the  Court  inform  us,  several  attempts  were  made  by  Corn- 
waleys or  Fenwick,  acting  as  his  attorney,  to  obtain  payment 
of  the  two  hundred  pounds.  With  what  result  we  shall  see 
presently.  The  Captain  appeared,  on  January  2, 1643.  The 
case  was  examined  by  Giles  Brent,  John  Lewger  and  James 
Neale.  When  Brent  asked  the  opinion  of  the  others,  Neale 
held  that  the  acting  Governor,  Giles  Brent,  could  not  proceed 
in  the  case  since  his  powers  were  restricted.  Brent  and 
Lewger  thought  otherwise.  After  reviewing  the  oath  of 
Lieutenant  General,  Brent  delared  ^Hhat  according  to  his 
cunning  &  skill  he  found  himselfe  bound  to  grant  processe  in 
the  said  cause,  notwithstanding  the  mandate  to  the  con- 
trary, the  Law  of  the  Province  nor  the  office  of  Lieutenancy 


104  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

being  either  of  them  abrogated  or  restraind,  &  therefore 

judged  the  process  should  be  granted  to  the  plf/'^^     He  then 

gave  Cornwaleys  an  opportunity  of  bringing  his  case  before 

the  court  on  February  1st. 

When  Cornwaleys  appeared  to  prosecute  Calvert,  Lewger 

and  Langford,  as  directed  by  Brent,  Lewger  testified  as 

follows: 

That  he  hath  received  no  satisfaction  nor  any 
thing  in  value  for  wch  he  charged  the  said  bill,  al- 
thoughe  he  acknowledged  it  upon  the  bill,  for  the 
forme  of  it;  but  only  took  a  house  to  his  Lops  use  at 
the  price  of  the  200  pounds  charged  in  the  Bill,  wch 
house  his  Lop  refuseth  as  not  valuably  bought,  &  the 
house  relinquished  to  the  plf .  in  the  state  as  then  it 
was,  &  therefore  prayeth  in  equity  that  he  be  not 
compelled  to  pay  the  said  mony,  in  regard  the  party 
for  whom  he  bought  it  will  not  receive  the  house,  nor 
is  any  thing  yet  received  for  that  mony:  &  if  the  bill 
be  recovered,  he  denieth  the  damage  demanded.*^ 

The  Lieutenant  General  then  '^demanded  whether  there 
was  any  reservation  upon  the  bargaine  to  relinquish  it  if 
disUked."  The  defendant  was  not  able  to  prove  any  such 
reservation.  The  plaintiff  was  then  required  to  make  '^oath 
of  his  damage."  Cornwaleys  asked  a  respite.  ^^And  the 
Enquest  not  agreeing  upon  the  Bill  give  in  charge  prayed  at 
5  cl  night  to  be  discharged."  The  attorney  for  Lord  Balti- 
more not  gainsaying,  the  Lieutenant  General  discharged 
them.39 

While  Cornwaleys  was  absent  in  England,  as  we  shall  see 
in  the  following  chapter,  Cuthbert  Fenwick,  his  attorney,  on 
January  9,  1644,  brought  the  following  petition  before  the 

Court : 

The  petition  of  Tho:  Cornwaleys  Esq,   by  his 
attorny  Cutbert  ffenick 
Sheweth 

that  whereas  the  horle  [honorable]  Governor  to- 
gether with  John  Lewger  &  John  Langford  Esqres 
did  on  the  12th  Aprill  1642.  deliver  to  your  petr 

3'  Ibid.,  p.  218. 
3«  Ibid.,  p.  244. 
»» Ibid. 


INDIAN   DISTURBANCES  105 

[petitioner]  a  bill  of  exchange  of  200  pounds  sterl: 
upon  the  right  horle  the  Lord  Proprietary  of  this 
Prov:  The  said  bill  of  exchange  was  refused  by  his 
said  Lop  and  protested;  and  thereby  the  petr  hath 
suffered  damage  to  the  value  of  100000  pounds  tob 
&  cask;  &  therefore  prayeth  the  said  damage,  of  the 
said  parties,  according  to  justice.'*^ 

Giles  Brent  communicated  this  petition  to  the  Governor 
and  asked  him  to  appoint  a  day  whereon  he  might  give  his 
reasons  to  the  Counsel  why  he  should  not  pay  Cornwaleys 
his  demands.  Calvert  promptly  informed  Brent  that  he  was 
not  bound  to  any  such  procedure  and  consequently  would  not 
appoint  any  time  for  the  hearing  of  the  case.^^  On  January 
13,  1644,  Fenwick  appeared  before  Giles  Brent  and  com- 
plained that  the  Governor  refused  to  give  satisfaction  for  the 
damages  and  also  refused  to  give  his  reasons  on  the  appointed 
day.  Brent  then  ordered  the  sheriff,  Edward  Packer,  to 
serve  ^'an  attachment'^  against  the  goods  of  the  honorable 
Governor.  Packer  refused.  On  the  next  day.  Brent  issued 
another  writ  of  the  same  tenor  to  Thomas  Mathewes.'^^  This 
is  the  last  reference  to  this  affair  recorded,  an  affair  in  which 
Cornwaleys  did  not  receive  justice.  Consequently  another 
link  was  added  to  the  chain  of  misunderstandings  between 
Calvert  and  the  Captain. 


"  Ibid.,  p.  293. 

« Ibid. 

<2  Ibid.,  pp.  293  and  294. 


CHAPTER  XI 

CORNWALEYS   AND    InGLE 

During  Governor  Calvert^s  absence  in  England,  another 
menace  to  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  Maryland  colony- 
arose.  As  the  whole  affair  was  an  echo  of  what  was  trans- 
piring in  the  mother-country,  a  brief  survey  of  events  in 
England  at  this  time  is  necessary.  Hostilities  between  the 
King  and  Parhament  were  soon  coming  to  an  issue.  Charles 
I  suromoned  all  his  loving  subjects  north  of  the  Trent,  and 
within  twenty  miles  to  the  south  of  that  river  to  meet  him  in 
arms  at  Nottingham  on  the  twenty-second  of  August,  1642. 
On  that  day  the  royal  standard  was  set  up.  Parliament's 
answer  to  this  challenge  was  that  all  who  gave  assistance  to 
the  King  were  to  be  regarded  as  traitors.  Civil  war  was  to 
ensue.  ^ 

The  influence  of  this  state  of  things  was  bound  to  be  felt  in 
Maryland.  That  Lord  Baltimore  had  any  political  relations 
with  the  royal  party,  there  is  no  evidence  and  little  prob- 
ability. The  obligations  of  his  charter  compelled  him  to 
have  some  relations  with  the  King.  His  colony  was,  as  we 
have  seen,  dependent  on  the  sovereign  only,  and  entirely 
independent  of  Parhament.  Communications  with  the  mon- 
arch on  matters  outside  of  the  subjects  of  the  contro- 
versy could  hardly  have  been  considered  an  offense,  so  long  as 
Charles  was  not  held  to  have  forfeited  his  crown. ^  It  seems 
as  though  Baltimore,  about  this  time,  was  entertaining 
thoughts  of  taking  refuge  from  the  storm  in  Maryland;  for 
in  March,  1643,  he  was  cited  before  the  Lords  and  placed 
under  bond  not  to  leave  the  country.^ 

About  this  time,  Richard  Ingle,  master  of  a  trading  vessel 
from  London,  came  to  the  colony.  He  had  previously  been 
in  Maryland.     The  first  time  his  name  appears  in  the  colonial 


1  Lingard,  History  of  England,  Vol.  vii,  pp.  267  et  seq. ;  Browne,  George  and 
CeciliiLS  Calvert,  p.  127. 

2  Browne,  op.  cit.,  pp.  127-8. 
^Ihid. 

106 


CORNWALEYS  AND   INGLE  107 

records  is  under  date  of  March  23,  1641,  when  he  petitioned 
the  Assembly  against  Giles  Brent  'touching  a  direction  to 
the  Sheriff  from  his  serving  an  execution."  ^  Captain  Ingle 
was  a  rampant  parliamentarian  given  to  treasonable  out- 
bursts on  his  own  quarter-deck.  Sworn  information  was 
laid  before  acting  Governor  Brent  that  he  had  used  language 
such  as  ^Hhe  King  is  no  King";  that  he  was  ^'sl  captain  for 
the  Parliament  against  the  King":  and  other  expressions  of 
the  same  kind.  Ingle  was  a  braggadocio,  but  a  serious  issue 
was  thrust  upon  the  Maryland  authorities  by  his  conduct. 
To  allow  him  to  go  his  way,  was  to  commit  the  colony  to  the 
side  of  the  parliamentary  party;  to  arrest  him  as  a  traitor 
was  to  place  it  on  the  side  of  the  King.  As  Browne  remarks, 
the  somewhat  singular  proceedings  that  followed  look  very 
much  like  an  ingenious  device  to  slip  between  the  horns  of 
the  dilemma.^ 

In  January,  1643,  a  warrant  was  issued  by  Brent  to  William 
Hardige,  to  arrest  Ingle  upon  a  charge  of  high  treason.  A 
similar  order  was  sent  to  Captain  Cornwaleys.  He  was  to 
aid  Hardige  and  to  use  all  means  possible  to  apprehend 
Ingle.  The  whole  matter  was  to  be  done  secretly.^  Ingle 
was  thereupon  arrested  and  given  into  the  custody  of  the 
sheriff,  Edward  Packer.  The  Lieutenant  General,  Giles 
Brent,  ordered  the  ship  of  Ingle  seized  together  with  his 
goods,  until  he  should  clear  himself  of  the  accusations  againsjb 
him.  A  guard  was  put  on  the  ship,  under  John  Hampton, 
who  was  to  allow  no  one  to  come  on  board  without  a  warrant 
from  the  Lieutenant  General.^ 

Ingle  escaped  in  the  following  manner.  Packer  had  no 
prison,  and  consequently  had  to  keep  personal  guard  over 
his  prisoner.  He  supposed,  from  '^certaine  words  spoken 
by  the  Secretary"  that  Brent  and  the  Council  had  agreed  to 
let  Ingle  go  on  board  his  vessel.    When  Cornwaleys  and  Neale 


*  I — Archives  of  Maryland,  Assembly,  p.  120. 
'  Brown,  op.  cit.,  pp.  128-9. 

•  IV — Archives  of  Maryland,  Court,  p.  231. 
'  Ibid.,  pp.  245-6. 


108  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

came  forth  from  Brent's  house  bringing  Ingle  with  them  to 
the  ship,  on  January  18,  1643,  Packer  accompanied  them.  ^ 
Arriving  on  the  ship,  Cornwaleys  said  '^All  is  Peace."  He 
then  persuaded  Hampton  to  bid  his  guard  lay  down  their 
arms  and  disperse.  Ingle  and  his  crew  regained  possession 
of  their  vessel.  Under  such  circumstances  Packer  could  not 
prevent  the  escape  of  Ingle  since  Councillor  Neale  and 
Captain  Cornwaleys  had  assisted  him  by  their  acts  and 
presence.^ 

A  few  days  later,  the  following  warrant  was  issued  by 
Brent : 

I  doe  hereby  require  (in  his  Maties  name)  Richard 
Ingle  mariner  to  yield  his  body  to  Robt  Ellyson 
Sheriff  of  this  County,  before  the  first  day  of  ffebr. 
next  to  answere  to  such  crimes  of  treason  as  on  his 
Maties  behalf e  shall  be  objected  agst  him  upon  his 
utmost  pill  [peril]  of  the  Law  in  that  behalf e.  And  I 
doe  further  require  all  psons  that  can  say  or  disclose 
any  matter  of  treason  agst  the  said  Richard  Ingle,  to 
inform  his  Lops  Attorny  of  it  at  some  time  before 
the  said  Court  to  the  end  it  may  be  then  &  there 
prosequuted.^^ 

Ingle,  however,  was  not  rearrested,  though  he  still  re- 
mained in  the  neighborhood  of  St.  Mary's.^^  For  some  time 
following  the  Ingle  question  was  agitated.  For  the  sake  of 
clearness,  an  account  should  be  given  of  the  acts  concerning 
him  as  well  as  the  persons  connected  with  the  affair,  in  the 
order  of  their  occurrence. 

After  the  warrant  issued  by  Brent  just  referred  to,  ^^The 
Lieutent  Grail  appointed  &  commanded  his  Lops  Attorney 
Grail  to  prosequute  agst  mr  Neale,  Capt  Cornwaleys,  Edward 
Packer,  &  John  hampton  for  their  rescuous  &  escape  of  mr 
Ingle,  according  to  justice  and  equity."  ^^ 

The  accusations  against  the  persons  concerned  were 
accordingly  brought  forth  by  the  Attorney  of  the  Proprietary 
in  the  following  words: 

*  Ibid.,  p.  258;  Ingle,  Captain  Richard  Ingle,  p.  10. 
» IV— Archives,  pp.  242  and  246. 
10  Ibid.,  p.  233. 


^"  Itnd.,  p.  266. 

"  Ingle,  op.  cit.,  p.  11. 

12 IV— Archives,  p.  232. 


CORNWALEYS   AND    INGLE  109 

The  Charge  of  John  Lewger  Esq  his  Lops  Attorny 
Grail  agst  James  Neale  Esq  one  of  his  Lops  Counsell, 
Capt  Thomas  Cornwaleys  Esq,  Edward  Packer  late 
sheriff,  and  John  hampton  planter. 

That  whereas  on  the  18th  of  this  instant  month, 
one  Richard  Ingle  (mr  of  the  good  ship  called  the 
Reformation,  now  riding  at  anchor  in  St.  Georges 
river)  was  by  the  Leiutent  Grail  committed  to  the 
custody  of  the  said  sheriff,  for  certaine  matters  of 
high-Treason  informed  agst  him  by  one  William 
Hardige  tailor,  and  the  said  ship  &  goods  seised  into 
his  Lops  hands,  &  a  guard  putt  upon  the  ship  by  the 
said  Lieut  Grail  under  the  comand  of  the  said 
John  hampton,  wth  expresse  charge  not  to  pmitt  the 
said  Rich:  Ingle  to  come  aboard,  without  warrant 
of  him  the  Lieut  Grail  Nevertheless  he  the  said 
Sheriff  on  the  day  aforesaid  without  any  order  or 
consent  of  the  said  Leiut  Gen:  carried  the  said 
Richard  Ingle  aboard  this  said  ship,  and  they  the  said 
Thomas  Cornwaleys  &  James  Neale,  did  consent, 
accompany,  advise,  &  aid  him  therein;  and  further 
did  pswade  the  said  John  hamton  to  discharge  & 
disarme  the  said  guard,  saying  All  is  Peace:  where- 
upon and  upon  other  his  owne  motion,  the  said  John 
hamton  did  will  the  said  Rich:  Ingle  &  his  seamen 
whereby  the  said  Rich:  Ingle  possessed  himselfe 
againe  of  his  said  shipp,  &  hath  escaped  out  of  the 
said  Sheriffs  custody.  And  this  rescuous  of  the  said 
ship,  and  escape  of  the  said  Rich:  Ingle  in  maner 
aforesaid,  was  done  &  caused  by  the  said  parties, 
after  their  knowledge  that  he  was  accused  &  arrested 
of  Highe  Treason,  to  the  great  contempt  of  his  Lops 
authority  in  the  Leiut.  gen :  The  ill  example  of  others, 
and  contrary  to  the  peace  of  or  Soveraigne  Lord  the 
king,  his  crowne  &  dignity. 

And  of  this  Rescuous  and  Escape  of  an  offendor 
imprisond  for  highe  Treason,  the  said  Attorny  im- 
peacheth  the  said  severall  pties  respectively,  and 
prayeth  that  such  pceedings  &  judgmt  agst  them 
be  done  therein  as  justice  require th.^^ 

On  January  21,  Brent  sent  a  summons  to  these  men  to 
answer  to  this  charge  within  three  days  at  the  latest  under 
pain  of  contempt  and  any  further  penalties  that  the  law  might 
inflict. 


"  IHd.,  pp.  232-3. 


110  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

Information  touching  these  matters  were  forthcoming  from 
various  persons.  The  first  information  contained  in  the 
suit  was  that  of  Hardige,  who  stated  that  at  various  times 
he  heard  Ingle  say  that  ''he  was  Captaine  of  Gravesend  for 
the  Parlamt  agst  the  [King";  that  sometime  in  February, 
1642,  at  Accomack,  Ingle,  having  been  commanded  in  the 
King's  name  to  come  ashore,  refused  to  do  so  in  the  name  of 
Parliament.  Standing  on  board  his  ship  he  drew  his  cutlass 
threatening  to  cut  off  the  head  of  any  who  should  try  to  force 
him  to  do  so.  Hardige  told  the  Attorney  that  one  Richard 
Pinner  could  testify  that  Ingle  had  said  in  the  presence  of 
others  that  King  Charles  was  no  king  or  words  to  that  effect. ^^ 

On  January  29,  information  was  communicated  to  Lewger 
by  Daniel  Duffill,  regarding  Cornwaleys'  part  in  the  escape 
of  Ingle.  He  stated  ''that  the  said  Captaine  [Cornwaleys] 
coming  aboard  mr  Ingle's  ship,  said  to  Jo.  hamton  All  is 
Peace,  &  willed  him  that  all  was  quiett  &  peace  &  willed  the 
said  Jo :  hamton  to  goe  out  to  the  rest  of  the  gard  &  will  them 
to  deliver  up  their  armes  to  the  gonner  of  the  ship."  ^^ 

The  trial  of  the  accused  parties  began  on  February  5,  1643. 
A  jury  was  sworn  in  and  the  accusations  against  Ingle 
brought  forth.  The  jurors  could  not  agree  on  the  various 
accusations  of  Hardige  and  toward  evening  prayed  to  be 
discharged.     Their  request  was  granted.  ^^ 

On  February  8th,  Lewger  brought  forth  his  charge  against 
Neale  and  Cornwaleys  in  practically  the  same  form  as  given 
above.  The  Captain  replied  to  the  charge  against  him 
*'that  he  did  well  understand  the  matters  charged  agst  the 
said  Rich:  Ingle  to  be  of  no  importance  but  suggested  of 
meere  malice  of  the  accuser  wilham  hardige,  as  hath  ap- 
peared since  in  that  grand  Enquest  found  not  so  much 
probability  in  the  accusations  as  that  it  was  fitt  to  putt  him 
to  his  triall."  Cornwaleys,  according  to  his  defence  "sup- 
posed and  understood"  that  Ingle  went  on  board  the  ship 
with  the  consent  of  the  Lieutenant  General  and  his  Counsel 

1*  Ibid.,  pp.  233-4. 
"/6id.,.p.  234. 
i«  lUd.,  p.  245. 


CORNWALEYS   AND   INGLE  111 

and  of  the  officer  in  whose  custody  he  was.  He  then  denied 
that  he  was  guilty  of  allowing  the  escape  of  Ingle  in  the  way 
charged  to  him.     He  therefore  prayed  to  be  dismissed.  ^^ 

From  this  evidence,  it  is  clear  that  the  Captain  did  not 
consider  Ingle  culpable  with  regard  to  the  treasonable 
utterance  alleged  against  him.  His  argument  was  substan- 
tiated by  the  fact  to  which  he  refers  as  the  grand  Inquest, 
that  the  jury  could  not  agree  for  a  whole  day  on  these  very 
charges  against  Ingle,  and  consequently  the  members,  on 
their  own  request,  were  dismissed.  With  regard  to  Corn- 
waleys'  impression  that  Ingle  went  on  board  his  ship  with  the 
permission  of  the  Lieutenant  General  and  Counsel  and  of  the 
Sheriff,  it  is  quite  possible  that  he  took  it  for  granted  that 
Neale  and  Packer  were  acting  under  approval  of  the 
authorities.  On  the  other  hand.  Packer  later  excused  him- 
self on  the  plea  that  Cornwaleys  and  Neale  were  sufficient 
guarantee  to  him  of  Ingle's  license  to  board  his  ship.  Russell 
incUnes  to  the  view  that  the  Captain  was  hoodwinked  by 
Ingle,  who  made  use  of  Cornwaleys'  kind  offices  to  effect  his 
release  and  escape. ^^ 

On  the  following  day  we  find  the  following  entry  upon  the 
records  of  the  Provincial  Court: 

1643 

Febr:  9.  upon  instance  of  Capt  Tho.  Cornwaleys, 
to  be  dismissed  the  Cort  without  further  delay  the 
L.  G.  demanded  of  his  Lops  attorny,  his  opinion  in 
point  of  law,  whether  accessary  to  rescue  of  one  im- 
"^  prisond  for  suspition  of  highe  treason,  were  to  be 
proceeded  agst  in  this  Prov:  according  to  the  rule 
expressed  in  or  Lawes,  in  bar  implied  to  the  Law  of 
England;  or  according  to  the  law  of  Engl,  and  the 
Attorny  delivered  his  opinion  that  the  Court  is 
bound  to  proceed  according  to  the  Lawes  of  this 
Province,  both  by  his  Lops  Commission,  &  by  their 
oath;  (so  far  as  the  Attorny  doth  judge  or  under- 
stand :)  althoughe  they  have  a  bar  implied  to  the  law 
of  England.i» 


"/Wd.,p.  248. 

"  Russell,  Maryland  the  Land  of  Sanctuary,  p.  177. 

» IV— Archives,  p.  249. 


112  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

After  considering  the  case  as  presented  before  the  Court, 
the  Lieutenant  General  pronounced  sentence  upon  Captain 
Cornwaleys.  He  was  found  'Ho  be  accessary  to  the  rescuous 
&  escape  charged;  &  adjudged  ...  to  lose  to  the  Lord 
Proprietary  one  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco."  ^^  Corn- 
waleys then  requested  that  the  levying  of  the  fine  be  post- 
poned. This  was  granted  and  his  Lordship's  Receiver  was 
commissioned  to  '^  respite  the  levying  of  the  fine  till  further 
order."  21 

On  February  29th,  the  Sheriff  of  St.  Mary's  was  ordered  to 
collect  the  fine  imposed.     The  order  reads: 

Levie  one  thousand  pounds  of  tobacco  on  any  the 
goods  or  debts  of  Capt  Tho.  Cornwaleys  for  so  much 
adjudged  by  way  of  fine  unto  the  Lord  Proprietr  agst 
him  at  the  Court  held  on  the  9th  febr  last,  &  deliver 
it  so  leavied  into  the  hands  of  the  Attorny  of  mr 
John  wyatt  Comder  of  Kent  in  discompt  of  so  much 
due  to  the  said  Comder  from  the  Lo:  Proprietr  and 
for  so  doing  this  shalbe  yor  warrt  And  this  writt 
exequuted  returne  it  into  the  Court  at  St  maries. 

Giles  Brent.^^ 

The  fine  of  the  Captain  is  reported  ''paid"  in  the  account 
of  Lewger  for  the  year  1643.^ 

We  will  now  ascertain  what  happened  to  the  other  actors  in 
the  Ingle  episode.  Neale,  in  answering  to  the  accusations 
against  him,  affirmed  that  he  never  took  Richard  Ingle  into 
his  charge,  nor  did  he  aid  him  in  his  escape.  The  Court 
thereupon  reinstated  him  in  his  office  as  Councillor.  ^^ 
Packer,  the  sheriff,  alleged  that  when  he  saw  Cornwaleys  and 
Neale  bringing  Ingle  with  them  from  the  house  of  Brent,  he 
concluded  that  their  action  was  done  with  official  approval. 
Furthermore,  he  alleged  that  Ingle  escaped  from  his  custody 
against  his  will.  He  too  was  exonerated.^  Hampton 
escaped  prosecution,  presumably,  for  there  is  no  further 
record  of  any  action  taken  against  him.^^    Thus  Cornwaleys 

21  Ibid. 

^Ibid.,  p.  255. 

^Ibid.,  p.  275. 

^IHd.,  p.  258. 

^Ibid. 

2«  Ingle,  op.  cU.,  p.  19. 


CORNWALEYS   AND   INGLE  113 

was  made  to  bear  the  brunt  of  the  prosecution.  It  is 
singularly  strange  that  the  Captain  was  obliged  to  pay  a 
heavy  fine  while  the  others  were  allowed  to  go  free.  The 
feeling  in  the  colony  was  so  strong  against  him  that  he  was 
compelled  to  embark  with  Ingle  for  England. ^^ 

Governor  Calvert  returned  to  Maryland  in  September, 
1644.  In  February  of  the  same  year  Ingle  again  appeared 
with  an  armed  ship,  the  Reformation,  having  goods  entrusted 
to  him  by  Cornwaleys,  valued  at  two  hundred  pounds.  He 
also  carried  a  commission  from  Parliament  for  carrying  food, 
clothing  and  ammunition  to  the  colonists  in  sympathy  with 
the  Parliamentary  party.^*  St.  Mary's  was  then  taken. 
Governor  Calvert  was  forced  to  flee  to  Virginia.  For  two 
years,  Ingle  and  his  band,  with  such  lawless  persons  as  they 
could  get  to  join  them,  had  possession  of  the  southern  part 
of  the  Province.^^  According  to  statements  made  in  the 
Assembly  of  1649,  during  this  invasion,  those  who  remained 
loyal  to  Lord  Baltimore,  ^  Vere  spoiled  of  their  whole  Estate 
and  sent  away  as  banished  persons  out  of  the  Province;  those 
few  that  remained  were  plundered  and  deprived  in  a  manner 
of  all  Livelyhood  and  subsistence  only  Breathing  under  that 
intolerable  Yoke  which  they  were  forced  to  bear  under  those 
Rebells."  ^^  The  people  were  tendered  an  oath  of  sub- 
mission, which  all  the  CathoUcs  refused  to  take.^^  In  con- 
sequence of  this  refusal,  they  were  severely  treated,  some 
being  banished  and  others  voluntarily  leaving  the  colony. 
The  two  Jesuits,  Fathers  White  and  Copley,  were  sent  in 
chains  to  England.^^ 

28 /bid.,  p.  20. 

29  Browne,  op.  ciL,  p.  130. 

30 1— Archives,  p.  238. 

"  Streeter,  Papers  relating  to  the  Early  History  of  Maryland,  p.  267. 

32  Winsor,  History  of  America,  Vol.  in,  p.  532.  Fathers  White  and  Copley, 
upon  their  arrival  in  England,  were  indicted  under  the  penal  laws,  for  having 
been  ordained  priests  abroad  and  coming  into  England  and  remaining  there 
as  such,  contrary  to  the  statute,  a  crime  punishable  with  death.  When 
brought  to  trial,  they  pleaded  that  they  had  been  brought  violently  into 
England,  and  had  not  come  of  their  own  will,  but  against  it.  The  judges 
directed  an  acquittal.  They  were  not,  it  would  seem,  liberated  at  once,  but 
were  detained  in  prison  and  finally  sent  out  of  England  under  an  order  of 
perpetual  banishment.  Father  White  never  returned  to  his  beloved  Mary- 
land; Father  Copley  returned  in  1648.  (Cf.  Shea,  History  of  the  Catholic 
Church  in  the  United  States,  Vol.  i,  pp.  63  et  seq.  and  69.) 


114  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

Towards  the  close  of  1646,  Governor  Calvert,  who  had 
been  watching  the  progress  of  events  from  Virginia,  deemed 
that  the  time  was  ripe  for  a  counter  revolution.  He  appeared 
at  St.  Mary^s  at  the  head  of  a  small  force  levied  in  Virginia, 
and  regained  possession  of  his  government  without  resistance. 
Ingle  left  Maryland,  and  the  people  returned  to  their  alle- 
giance with  marked  alacrity.  The  most  lasting  evil  caused  by 
Ingle^s  rebellion  was  the  destruction  of  the  greater  part  of 
the  then  existing  records.  Due  to  this  fact,  much  of  this 
whole  episode  remains  involved  in  obscurity.^^ 

Ingle's  baseness  is  best  shown  in  his  treatment  of  Captain 
Cornwaleys  who  had  befriended  him.  The  record  of  this 
perfidy  is  preserved  for  the  historian  in  the  Archives  of 
Maryland,  which  contain  the  account  as  given  in  the  House 
of  Lords  Journal.  The  account  also  reveals  the  fact  that 
religion  entered  into  the  uprising  of  Ingle  in  Maryland  and 
that  it  was  not  merely  a  political  move  in  favor  of  ParUa- 
ment  against  the  King.  It  serves  also  to  show  that  Corn- 
waleys' allowing  Ingle  to  escape  from  the  hands  of  the  law  was 
caused  by  the  Captain  having  an  inadequate  comprehension 
of  Ingle's  machinations  as  he  testified  before  the  Provincial 
Court. 

On  February  24,  1645,  Richard  Ingle  presented  a  petition 
'^To  the  Right  Honorable  the  Lords  nowe  in  Parly ament 
assembled."  In  it  he  alleges  that  when  he  arrived  in  Mary- 
land he  found  that  the  Governor  there  had  received  a  com- 
mission to  seize  all  the  ships  and  goods  of  those  friendly  to 
Parliament,  to  force  an  oath  upon  them  and  to  secure  their 
extirpation.  The  petitioner  avers  that  he  deemed  himself 
bound  in  fidelity  to  Parliament  to  risk  all  to  come  to  the  aid 
of  the  '^well  affected  Protestants,  against  the  said  Tyran- 
nicall  Governor  and  the  Papists  ...  to  anable  him  to  take 
divers  places  from  them  and  to  make  him  a  supporte  to  the 
said  well  affected."  The  petition  contains  the  following 
relative  to  Cornwaleys: 

But  since  his  Ingle^s  Retorne  into  England  the  said 
Papists  and  Malignants  conspiring  togeather  have 


^  Winsor,  op.  ciL,  pp.  532-3. 


CORNWALEYS  AND    INGLE  115 

brought  fictitious  Actions  against  him  att  the  Comon 
Lawe  in  the  name  of  Thomas  CornwalHs  and  others 
for  pretended  Trespasses. ^^ 

Ingle  concludes  by  affirming  that  ''it  would  be  of  dangerous 
example  to  pmitt  Papists  and  Malignants,  to  bring  Action  of 
Trespasse,  or  otherwise  against  the  well  affected  for  fighting 
and  standing  for  the  Parlyament."^^  The  whole  burden  of 
the  petition  is  to  request  the  Lords  to  hold  a  hearing  of  the 
case  or  to  refer  it  to  a  Committee  to  report  on  the  true  state 
of  things  and  to  order  that  the  suits  against  the  petitioner  be 
stayed  and  no  further  proceeded  in.^^ 

On  March  2,  1645,  we  find  the  following  entry  relative  to 
the  case  of  Cornwaleys  versus  Ingle: 

Thomas  CornwalHs  pit  [plaintiff] 

agst 
Richard  Ingle  defte  [defendant] 

Cornwallis  planted  himselfe  divers  yeares  since  in  the  ^ 
Pvince  of  Maryland  in  America,  And  about  two  ^„ 
yeares  since  Ingle  came  thither  as  Mr  of  a  London 
Shipp  to  trade  in  those  parts  wth  the  English  who 
had  planted  there  and  was  there  accused  of  high 
Treason  for  wordes  wch  he  had  spoken  agst  the  King 
upon  some  Comunicacon  of  the  differences  here 
between  the  King  and  Parliament  upon  wch  ac- 
cusacon  Ingle  was  arrested  and  his  Shipp  and  goods 
seised  by  the  then  Governor  but  Cornwallis  to  declare 
his  affeccon  to  the  Parliament  found  meanes  within 
8  howers  space  to  free  Ingle  and  to  restore  him  to  his 
Shipp  and  all  his  goods  againe,  for  wch  fact  the 
greatest  fine  that  by  ye  Lawes  of  that  Country  there 
imposed  uppon  Cornwallis  and  hee  compelled  to  pay 
the  same  And  then  for  the  safety  of  his  person 
enforct  to  trust  his  whole  estate  there  wth  a  Servant 
and  flie  hither  wth  Ingle  in  the  same  Shipp  And  when 
Cornwallis  came  into  England  Ingle  gave  Testimony 
before  a  Comittee  of  his  good  affeccion  to  ye  Parlai- 
ment  and  of  his  great  sufferings  for  that  Cause. 

Afterwards  Ingle  goeing  into  those  pts  againe 
Cornwallis  entrusted  him  here  in  London  by  way  of 
Trade  wth  diverse  Comodities  to  the  value  of  about 
200  pounds  but  Ingle  kept  the  Commodities,  and 
takeing  advantage  of  Cornwallis  his  absence  landed 


3*  III— Archives  of  Maryland,  Council,  p.  165;Lords'  Journal,  viii,  pp.  183, 186. 

3«*  Ibid.,  p.  166. 

^^Ibid. 


116  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

some  men  nere  his  howse  and  rifled  him  to  the  value 
of  2500  pounds  att  the  least  And  then  returning 
into  England  complained  before  the  Comittee  of 
Examinacons  agst  Cornwallis  as  an  enimy  to  the 
State  vainely  hopeing  by  that  meanes  to  shelter 
himselfe  from  the  Law,  but  upon  full  debate  of 
the  businesse  before  that  Comittee  Cornwallis  was 
referred  to  his  remedy  att  Law,  and  hath  brought  an 
accon  att  Lawe  agst  Ingle  for  the  Comodities  delivered 
here,  and  pcured  a  Comission  out  of  the  Chancery 
to  examyne  witnesses  of  the  value  of  the  goods  taken 
in  Maryland. 

To  stay  these  pceedings  Ingle  caused  Cornwallis 
to  be  laid  in  prison  uppon  2  faigned  accons  of  15000 
pounds  but  Cornwallis  by  the  helpe  of  his  friendes 
gott  out  of  prison  And  that  piect  [project]  faileing 
Ingle  prferrd  a  peticon  agst  Cornwallis  before  the 
Lordes  in  Parliamt  And  upon  fayned  allegacons 
hath  pcured  an  Order  to  stopp  Cornwallis  his 
pceedings  att  the  Lawe  till  the  matter  conteuned  in 
the  peticon  be  determined  And  nowe  Ingle  absents 
himselfe  and  psecutes  noe  further  upon  his  peticon. 
And  now  Cornwallis  hath  peticoned  the  Lords  that  in 
regard  hee  hath  attended  severall  dayes  wth  Councell 
and  is  noe  longer  able  to  beare  that  charge,  that  the 
businesse  may  be  speedily  heard  and  determined  by 
their  Lopps  or  that  hee  may  be  left  att  Liberty  to  try 
his  accon  att  Lawe  for  the  goods  delivered  to  Ingle 
here.^^ 

This  account  speaks  for  itself.  It  contains  the  recitation 
of  the  wrongs  Ingle  perpetrated  against  the  Captain.  It  was 
thus  that  he  was  repaid  for  his  kindness.  And  Ingle  to  clear 
himself  poses  as  a  champion  of  Parliament,  as  a  liberator  of 
the^colonists  from  a  tyrannical  Governor,  as  a  warrior  for  the 
Protestant  cause  against  the  oppressions  of  the  ^'Papists  and 
Malignants.'^  All  this  was  done  by  Ingle  to  set  at  naught 
the  charges  which  Thomas  Cornwaleys  brought  against  him. 
TheJ[state  to  which  the  Captain  was  reduced  by  the  ingrate 
was^such  that  he  was  ^'spoyld  of  all  his  goods  and  ruyn'd  by 
the  said  Ingle."  ^^ 

At  the  same  time  that  these  affairs  were  transpiring,  a 
petition  was  also  addressed  to  the  Lords  in  Parliament  by 

"  Ibid.,  pp.  166-7. 
38  Ibid.,  p.  170. 


CORNWALEYS   AND   INGLE  117 

one  Mary  Ford,  on  behalf  of  the  Protestant  inhabitants  of 
Maryland  and  Virginia.  In  it  Cornwaleys  is  accused  of 
being  the  chief  actor  in  a  design  for  the  settling  of  a  ^'Popish 
faction  in  Maryland."  Several  trumped  up  charges  are 
brought  against  him  that  are  so  absurd  that  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  recount  them.  In  fact  the  Captain  is  even  accused 
of  the  seizure  of  Ingle's  ship  when  he  was  really  the  man 
judged  responsible  by  the  Maryland  authorities  for  allowing 
that  individual  to  escape.^^ 

How  this  matter  between  Ingle  and  Cornwaleys  was  settled 
does  not  appear.''^  On  September  8,  1647,  however,  Richard 
Ingle  transferred  to  Cornwaleys  ''for  divers  good  and  valu- 
able causes"  the  debts,  bills,  etc.,  belonging  to  him,  and  made 
him  his  attorney  to  collect  the  same.^^ 

Much  might  be  said  in  extenuation  of  Cornwaleys'  act  in 
allowing  the  escape  of  Ingle  from  the  hands  of  the  Maryland 
authorities.  According  to  his  own  testimony  he  certainly 
must  be  acquitted  of  much  of  the  blame  for  this  act.     In  the 


39  76id.,  pp.  168-9  and  171. 

*°  Further  references  to  the  Cornwaleys-Ingle  case  are  the  following: 

Cause  of  Ingle  and  Ford  vs.  Cornwaleys,  set  for  Mar.  14,  1645-6.   L.  J., 

Vol.  VIII,  p.  206. 
Mar.  31,  1646.     Petition  of  Cornwaleys  to  Lords,  mss.  of  the  House  of 

Lords;  calendared  in  Historical  Manuscripts  Commission,  Sixth  Report, 

appendix,  p.  109;  III — Archives,  pp.  170-1. 
Mar.  31,  1646.    Cause  postponed  two  weeks.    L.  J.,  viii,  247. 
Apr.   14,   1646.     Hearing  again  postponed.    Cornwaleys  being  ready, 

damages  will  be  given  him  if  it  shall  be  thought  fit  at  the  trial. 
Apr.  25.     Petition  of  Mary  Ford  vs.  Cornwaleys.  mss.  of  House  of  Lords; 

calendared  Hist.  Mss.  Comm.,  6th  Rept.,  app.  p.  113;  /// — Archives,  p. 

171. 
Apr.  25.    Cause  to  be  heard  Tuesday  next.    L.  J.,  viii,  283. 
Apr.  28.    Again  postponed  to  May  15.    L.  J.,  viii,  288. 
May  15.    Postponed  ''Wednesday  come  sevennight."    Ibid.,  p.  315. 
May  22.     Petition  of  Cornwaleys  to  Lords.     Hearing  having  been  set  for 

May  27,  which  being  fast  day  (monthly  fast  appointed  to  be  kept  on 

last  Wednesday  of  every  month;  L.  J.  v.,  320),  asks  that  some  other 

day  be  appointed.     Complains  of  delays  and  the  expense  to  him.     mss. 

of  House  of  Lords;  calendared  as  above,  p.  117. 
May  22.     Trial  to  be  had  Wednesday  next.     L.  J.,  viii,  324. 

Further  postponements  to  June  11,  July  2,  9,  Oct.  16.    L.  J.,  viii,  336, 

369,  406,  424. 
All  papers  relating  to  the  Ingle-Cornwaleys  controversy  before  the  House 

of  Lords  will  be  pubhshed  in  full  in  the  first  volume  of  Dr.  Leo  F. 

Stock's   forthcoming   work.  Parliamentary   Proceedings   and   Debates 

relating  to  America, 
**  Ingle,  op.  cit.,  p.  33. 


118  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

first  place  he  did  not  believe  that  the  accusations  were  so  well 
founded  with  regard  to  the  treasonable  utterances  of  Ingle. 
Again,  he  acted  under  the  impression  that  Ingle  was  allowed 
to  depart  by  Brent  and  his  Counsel.  Whatever  be  the 
merits  of  this  defense  of  Cornwaleys,  this  much  is  certain, 
that  he  got  more  than  his  deserts  from  the  authorities  in  the 
colony.  Furthermore,  he  was  subjected  to  being  made  the 
proxy  of  all  IngeFs  vengeance  against  the  Maryland 
authorities  by  being  held  responsible  by  that  man  for  all 
the  alleged  crimes  which  Ingle  brought  against  them. 
Though  he  may  have  been  vindicated,  which  is  by  no  means 
certain,  nevertheless,  he  was  forced  to  undergo  imprisonment 
and  the  ordeal  of  a  lawsuit  to  clear  himself. 


CHAPTER  XII 
Final  Services  to  the  Colony 

The  Ingle  disturbance  having  ended,  the  colony  settled 
down  to  peaceful  pursuits.  The  Governor,  Leonard  Cal- 
vert, was  not  to  enjoy  the  fruit  of  his  successful  effort  to 
restore  tranquihty.  He  died  on  June  9,  1647,  at  the  Uttle 
capital  of  St.  Mary^s  which  he  had  founded,  and  where  he  had 
exercised  with  wisdom  and  moderation,  the  highest  executive 
and  judicial  offices.  On  his  death-bed,  he  appointed  Thomas 
Greene,  a  Cathohc  and  a  royaUst,  his  successor.  The  new 
executive  proclaimed  a  general  pardon  to  those  in  the 
Province  who  had  a  share  in  the  late  rebeUion  and  also  to 
all  those  who  had  fled  from  the  colony,  except  Richard 
Ingle.  ^ 

The  monarchical  cause  was  now  prostrate  in  England. 
With  Parliament  supreme,  Cecilius  Calvert  saw  a  great 
danger  threatening  his  colonial  domains.  He  deemed  it 
prudent  to  make  it  impossible  for  his  enemies  to  allege  that 
Maryland  was  a  Catholic  colony.  At  the  same  time  he  felt 
it  his  duty  to  protect  those  of  his  own  faith.  He  accordingly 
adopted  a  policy  that  was  one  of  conciliation  to  the  Puritans 
as  well  as  of  protection  to  the  Cathohcs.  In  August,  1648, 
he  removed  Governor  Greene,  and  appointed  William  Stone 
to  the  post.  The  new  official  was  a  Virginian,  a  zealous 
Protestant  and  a  Parhamentarian.  At  the  same  time  the 
Proprietor  issued  a  new  commission  for  the  Council  of  the 
Province,  appointing  five  men  to  form  that  body,  three  of 
whom  were  Protestants.  A  Protestant  Secretary  was  also 
nominated.^ 

The  Governor  and  Counsellors  were  required  to  swear  that 
they  would  not  molest  any  person  in  the  Province  professing, 
to  believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  in  particular  no  Roman 
Cathohc.^    In  the  year  1649,  the  Assembly  of  Maryland 


1  Winsor,  History  of  America^  Vol.  iii,  p.  533. 

^Ihid. 

3  lUd.,  pp.  533-4. 

119 


120  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

passed  the  Act  concerning  Religion,  or  "Act  of  Toleration^' 
as  it  is  often  called,  which  enforced  by  statute  what  had  been 
the  policy  of  the  Proprietary  from  the  beginning.  Penalties 
are  prescribed  for  "whatsoever  person  or  persons  within  this 
Province  .  .  .  shall  from  henceforth  blaspheme  God,  that  is 
curse  him,  or  deny  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  to  be  the  sonne 
of  God,  or  shall  deny  the  holy  Trinity  the  ffather  sonne  and 
holy  Ghost,  or  the  Godhead  of  any  of  the  said  Three  persons 
of  the  Trinity  or  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead,  or  shall  use  or 
utter  any  reproachful  Speeches,  words,  or  language  concern- 
ing the  Holy  Trinity;  .  .  .  whatsoever  person  or  persons 
shall  .  .  .  utter  any  reproachfuU  words  or  Speeches  con- 
cerning the  blessed  Virgin  Mary  the  Mother  of  our  Saviour 
or  the  holy  Apostles  or  Evangehsts.'^  It  also  punishes  all 
who  shall  call  others  by  reviling  names  on  account  of  religious 
differences.  Profanation  of  the  Sabbath  became  a  penal 
offence.  Furthermore  no  person  was  to  be  molested  who 
professed  a  behef  in  Jesus  Christ.  The  free  exercise  of 
religion  was  provided  for.  Any  infringements  on  these 
provisions  of  the  statutes  were  to  be  punished  in  proportion 
to  the  offence  as  provided  by  law.^ 

Just  when  Captain  Cornwaleys  returned  to  Maryland 
after  his  long  absence  cannot  be  definitely  stated.  About  the 
latter  part  of  the  year  1652,  he  appeared  in  Court  to  seek 
redress  for  injury  done  his  servants  and  property  during  the 
Ingle  uprising.  Accordingly  he  addressed  a  complaint  to  the 
Governor  and  Council  of  the  Province  touching  this  matter. 
We  will  give  the  account  in  full  as  recorded  in  the  records  of 
the  Court  as  it  throws  much  Hght  on  the  possessions  of  the 
Captain. 

The  Humble  Complaint  of  Thomas  Comwallis 
Esq   against   Thomas   Sturman   &   John   Sturman 
Coopers  &  William  Hardwich  Taylor. 
Sheweth. 

That  Whereas  it  is  well  knowne  that  the  Complt 
was  one  of  the  Chiefe  and  first  Adventurers  for  the 


*  I — Archives  of  Maryland,  Assembly,  pp.  244-7. 


FINAL  SERVICES   TO   THE   COLONY  121 

planting  of  this  Province,  and  therein  besides  the 
danger  and  hazard  of  his  Life  and  health,  Exhausted 
a  Great  part  of  his  Estate  not  only  in  the  first  Ex- 
pedition, but  alsoe  in  yearly  Supplyes  of  Servants 
and  Goods  for  the  Support  of  himself  and  this  then 
Infant  Collony  by  which  and  Gods  Blessing  upon  his 
Endeavours,  he  had  acquired  a  Settled  &  Com- 
fortable Subsistance  haveing  a  Competent  Dwelling 
house,  furnished  with  plate  Linnen  hangings  beding, 
brass,  pewter  and  all  manner  of  Houshold  Stuff 
worth  at  the  least  a  thousand  pounds;  about  twenty 
Servants,  at  least  a  hundred  Neat  Cattell  a  Great 
Stock  of  Swine  and  Goats  Some  Sheep  and  horses,  a 
new  pinnace  about  twenty  Tunn  well  rigged  and 
fitted  besides  a  New  Shallop  and  other  Small  boates, 
with  divers  debts  for  Goods  Sold  to  the  quantity  of 
neare  A  Hundred  thousand  weight  of  Tobacco,  all  of 
which  at  his  going  for  England  in  or  about  Aprill 
1644  he  left  and  deposited  in  the  Care  and  Custody  of 
his  Attorney  Cuthbert  ffenwick  Gent,  who  in  or 
about  ffebruary  following  comeing  from  the  Ship  of 
Richard  Ingle  Marriner  was  as  Soon  as  he  Came 
ashore.  Treacherously  and  Illegally  Surprized  by 
the  Said  John  Sturman  and  others,   and  Carryed 
prisoner  aboard  the  said  Ingles  Ship,   and  there 
detained  and   Compelled  to  deliver  the   Complts 
house,  and  the  rest  of  the  premissess  into  the  pos- 
session of  Divers  ill  disposed  persons  whereof  the 
Said  Tho:  and  John  Sturman  and  Wm  Hardwich 
were  three  of  the  Chiefe,  who  being  Soe  unlawfully 
possest  of  the  Said  house,  and  the  premisses  plundered 
and  Carryed  away  all  things  in  It,  pulled  downe  and 
burnt  the  pales  about  it,  killed  and  destroyed  all  the 
Swine  and  Goates,  and  killed  or  mismarked  almost 
all  the  Cattle,  tooke  or  dispersed  all  the  Servants, 
Carryed  away  a  Great  quantity  of  Sawn  Boards  from 
the  pitts,  and  ript  up  Some  floors  of  the  house,  And 
having  by  these  Violent  and  unlawfull  Courses,  forst 
away  my  Said  Attorney,  the  said  Thomas  and  John 
Sturman  possest  themselves  of  the  Complts  house 
as  their  owne  dwelt  in  it  Soe  long  as  they  please  and 
at  their  departing  tooke  the  locks  from  the  doors, 
and  the  Glass  from  the  windowes,  and  in  fine  ruined 
his  whole  Estate  to  the  damage  of  the  Complt  at 
least  two  or  three  thousand  pounds,  for  which  he 
humbly  Craves  the  Justice  of  this  Court  against  the 
said  Tho:  and  John  Sturman  and  Willm  Hardwich 
towards  the  repaires  of  his  Great  Damage  and  loss 
wherein  they  have  been  no  Small  Shares.^ 


*  X — Archives  of  Maryland,  Court,  pp.  253-4. 


122  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

Both  parties  in  this  law  suit  agreed  to  postpone  the  hearing 
of  this  case  until  the  next  General  Assembly.®  What  the 
further  developments  of  the  case  were  cannot  be  well  deter- 
mined as  the  records  do  not  contain  much  reference  to  the 
same.  However,  an  entry  on  the  Court  records  dated  March 
6,  1653,  tells  us  that  two  arbitrators,  WilUam  Stone  and 
Thomas  Hatton,  decided  that  several  payments  in  tobacco 
were  to  be  made  by  John  Sturman  on  his  own  behalf  and 
that  of  his  father  to  the  Captain.  This  was  done  to  satisfy 
for  all  differences  between  them  and  Cornwaleys  ^'heretofore 
depending  in  Court  or  referred  to  Assembly.'^  ^ 

About  this  time  Cornwaleys  presented  a  petition  to  the 
authorities  to  secure  the  land  due  to  him  for  transportation 
of  servants  at  various  times.  The  document  states:  ''It  is 
well  known,  he  Cornwaleys  hath  at  his  great  cost  and  charges, 
from  the  first  planting  of  this  Province  for  the  space  of 
twenty-eight  years,  been  one  of  the  greatest  propagators  and 
increasers  thereof,  by  the  yearly  transportation  of  servants, 
whereof  divers  have  been  of  very  good  rank  and  quahty, 
towards  whom  and  the  rest  he  hath  always  been  so  careful  to 
discharge  a  good  conscience,  in  the  true  performance  of  his 
promise  and  obligations,  that  he  was  never  taxed  with  any 
breach  thereof,  though  it  is  also  well  known  and  he  doth 
truly  aver  it,  that  the  charge  of  so  great  a  family,  as  he  hath 
always  maintained  was  never  defrayed  by  their  labor"  ^ 

The  Ust  of  the  Captain's  servants  will  not  prove  uninterest- 
ing to  the  reader.  The  same  was  compiled  from  the  accounts 
in  Richardson's  Side-lights  on  Maryland  History  and  Neill's 
Founders  of  Maryland.  Both  these  authors  make  their 
citations  from  the  Annapolis  Records.^ 

Regarding  the  first  servants  of  the  Captain  to  arrive  in  the 
colony,  we  find  the  following  entry  on  the  records,  made  in 
February,  1652:  "A  list  of  persons  brought  into  the  Province 


6  Ibid.,  p.  234. 

7  Ibid.,  p.  348. 

*  Neill,  Founders  of  Maryland,  pp.  80-1. 

^  Richardson,  Side-Lights  on  Maryland  History,  pp.  8-15;  Neill,  op.  cit., 
pp.  77-9. 


FINAL   SERVICES   TO    THE    COLONY  123 

of  Maryland  at  the  cost  and  charges  of  me,  Thomas  Corn- 
walleys,  Esq.,  since  the  first  seating  in  Anno  1634  [new 
style],  to  this  year,  1652,  for  which  I  demand  land  accord- 
ing to  the  conditions  of  Plantations  from  time  to  time;  Anno 
1634,  transported  in  the  Ark  myself  and  12  servants.  By 
my  partner,  Mr.  John  Sanders,  who  dying  gave  me  that 
year,  5  servants.  Brought  the  same  year  from  Virginia,  four 
servants,  viz:  Cuthbert  Fenwick,  Christopher  Martin,  John 
Norton,  Senior,  John  Norton,  Junior,  so  in  all  that  year,  2 
and  20  persons. ^^  ^° 

Who  the  twelve  men  were  does  not  appear.  The  five 
servants  of  Sanders  referred  to  are:  Benjamin  Hodges,  John 
Elkin,  Richard  Cole,  Richard  Nevill,  John  Marlburgh.^^ 

The  following  were  brought  over  to  the  colony  in  various 
years  as  indicated : 

1633.  (O.  S.)  John  Hollowes,  John  Holdern,  Roger 
Walter,  Roger  Morgan,  Josias  .  .  .,  Thomas  Beckworth, 
Matthew  Burrowes,  Samuel  .  .  .,  Cuthbert  Fenwick,  Rich- 
ard Loe,  WiUiam  Fitter,  John  Robinson,  William  Browne, 
Stephen  Gore,  Stephen  Jammison  and  Stephen  Sammon.^^ 

As  Richardson  was  only  concerned  with  the  first  settlers,  we 
complete  our  list  from  NeilFs  account.  It  is  to  be  noted  that 
this  author  uses  the  new-style  date. 

1635.  Zachary  Mottershead,  John  Gage,  Walter  Water- 
ling,  Francis  Van  Eyden,  WiUiam  Penshoot,  Richard  Cole, 
John  Medley,  Richard  Brown  and  Richard  Brock. 

1636.  John  Cook,  Thomas  York,  Daniel  Clocker,  Richard 
Hill  and  Restitutia  Tue. 

1637.  Charles  Maynard,  Stephen  Gray,  Francis  Shirley, 
Ann  Wiggin  and  AHce  Moreman. 

1639.  Nicholas  Gwyther,  Edmund  Jaques,  Richard 
Farmer,  Edmund  Deering,  George  .  .  .,  WilUam  Freak, 
Morris  Freeman,  Jeremiah  Coote  and  Martha  Jackson. 

1"  Richardson,  op.  ciL,  pp.  14-5;  O'Daniel,  The  Right  Rev.  Edward  Dominic 
Fenwick,  0.  P.,  inclines  to  the  opinion  that  Cuthbert  Fenwick  came  to  Mary- 
land on  the  Ark.  He  substantiates  his  argjufment  by  two  records  to  this  effect 
against  one  record  that  he  was  brought  from  Virginia.  For  the  three  records, 
see  Richardson,  op.  cit.,  pp.  12,  14,  15. 

"  Richardson,  op.  cit.,  pp.  li-2. 

^2  Ibid.,  pp.  12  and  14.  Stephen  Sammon  and  Stephen  Jammison  are 
probably  the  same  person.  The  two  entries  list  ten  names  which  are  identical 
except  the  last.     In  one  entry  it  gives  Sammon  and  in  the  other  Jammison. 


124  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

1640.  William  Durford,  Henry  Brooke,  George  .  .  ., 
Edward  Matthews  and  Hannah  Ford. 

1641.  Francis  Anthill,  Richard  Harvey,  Charles  Rawlin- 
son,  Richard  Harris,  Thomas  Harrison,  Edward  Ward, 
Robert  King,  Mary  Phillips,  John  Wheatley  and  his  wife. 

1642.  Thomas  Rockwood,  John  Rockwood  and  Elizabeth 
Batte. 

1646.     Magdalene  Wittle. 

1651.  Robert  Curtis,  William  Sinckleare,  Thomas  Frisell, 
WiUiam  Wells,  John  Maylande,  John  Eston  and  Sarah 
Lindle. 

Besides  the  lists  of  the  servants  of  Captain  Cornwaleys, 
we  are  also  able,  from  various  sources,  to  give  a  list  of  the 
different  tracts  of  land  acquired  by  him  during  the  years  of 
his  sojourn  in  Maryland.  His  estates  will  appear  in  the 
order  of  their  acquisition. 

Cornwaleys  Cross,  a  tract  of  two  thousand  acres  surveyed 
on^September  19,  1639,  and  located  near  St.  Mary's.  Corn- 
waleys usually  resided  at  the  Cross. ^^ 

SL  Elizaheth^Sj  a  tract  of  the  same  extent  as  the  Cross, 
surveyed  at  the  same  time. 

West  St.  Mary^s  Mannour,  a  tract  of  two  thousand  acres, 
surveyed  September  20,  1640. 

Resurrection  Mannour,  a  tract  of  four  thousand  acres, 
surveyed  March  24,  1650. 

Nuthall,  a  tract  of  two  hundred  acres,  surveyed  July  28, 
1654. 

Cornwaleys^  Choice,  a  tract  of  one  thousand  acres,  surveyed 
August  16,  1658. 

Verina,  a  tract  of  one  thousand  acres,  surveyed  August 
21,  1658,  for  Captain  Cornwaleys.  Possessed  by  Daniel 
Pierce,  WiUiam  Freeman,  Samuel  Bostic,  James  Wilson, 
Wilham  Smith  and  John  Wilson.  ^^ 

Cornwaleys  also  possessed  a  tract  known  as  Cornwaleys^ 
Neck,  located  in  St.  Mary's  County.     What  the  extent  of 

^3  Davis,  The  Day-Star  of  American  Freedom,  p.  209. 

"Richardson,  op.  ciL,  pp.  288,  290,  291,  292,  294;  also  Streeter,  Papers 
relating  to  the  Early  History  of  Maryland,  p.  203;  Kilty,  The  Land-Holders 
Assistant,  p.  70. 


FINAL   SERVICES   TO   THE   COLONY  125 

this  tract  was,  we  have  been  unable  to  find.  On  March  7, 
1642,  the  colonial  surveyor  was  ordered  to  lay  out  four 
thousand  acres  "  in  any  part  of  Patowmack  river,  upward  of 
Port  Tobacco  Creek.''  This  may  have  been  the  tract  known 
as  Cornwaleys'  Neck}^ 

Having  digressed  at  some  length  to  examine  the  possessions 
of  Captain  Cornwaleys,  we  now  continue  our  narrative. 

During  Governor  Stone's  incumbency,  several  Indian 
tribes  again  became  troublesome.  The  incursions  were  of 
such  a  nature  as  to  cause  the  inhabitants  of  the  colony  to 
petition  the  Governor  to  take  measures  for  the  adequate 
protection  of  their  lives  and  property.  Stone  at  once  re- 
sponded to  their  request.  Not  content  with  consulting  his 
Counsel,  he  decided  to  call  upon  several  men  whose  sound 
judgment  and  experience  in  Indian  warfare  particularly 
quaUfied  them  to  give  advice  in  such  an  emergency.  Among 
these,  after  a  long  disappearance  from  the  stage,  Thomas 
Cornwaleys  again  comes  forward  in  his  old  character  of 
trusted  adviser,  and  one  of  the  firm  bulwarks  of  the  colony. ^^ 

At  a  Court  session  held  at  St.  Mary's,  on  November  25, 
1652,  the  Governor  and  Council,  together  with  Cornwaleys 
and  others  whose  advice  and  assistance  was  desired,  deliber- 
ated on  an  expedition  against  the  Indians.  As  a  result  of 
this  meeting,  it  was  decided  that  sufficient  forces  be  levied  for 
a  march  against  the  eastern  shore  Indians.  For  this  pur- 
pose, every  seventh  man  throughout  the  Province  was  to  be 
called  into  the  service,  councillors  and  other  public  officers 
being  excepted.  The  six  persons  not  drafted,  were  to  supply 
the  seventh  with  provisions,  arms,  and  ammunition.  All 
were  to  rendezvous  at  Kent  Island  by  December  30th,  where 
they  were  to  be  commanded  by  Captain  William  Fuller. 
This  gentleman  was  the  principal  military  man  among  the 
Parhamentarians  of  the  Province.  He  came  over  from 
Virginia  with  the  Puritan  settlers  in  1649.^^ 


"  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  pp.  166  and  190. 

"  Ibid.,  p.  194. 

*'  /// — Archives  of  Maryland,  Council,  p.  282;  also  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  pp.  194-5. 


126  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

Just  why  the  veteran  Cornwaleys  was  not  chosen  for  the 
leadership  of  this  movement  is  not  known.  Streeter  thinks 
that  the  reason  was  due  to  previous  hard  service,  ill  health, 
or  wounds  received  in  previous  expeditions.  He  also  con- 
siders it  hkely  that  the  appointment  of  Fuller  was  more 
opportune  since  he  resided  nearer  the  scene  of  the  proposed 
operations.  He  was  popular  in  that  quarter  where  a  con- 
siderable part  of  the  force  was  to  be  drawn,  and  consequently 
was  better  fitted  than  an  inhabitant  of  another  part  of  the 
colony.  ^^ 

This  Indian  expedition  was  destined  to  fall  through  as  so 
many  previous  ones.  Divers  obstacles  arose,  rendering  it 
impossible  to  collect  a  sufficient  force  for  the  project. 
Fuller  was  very  willing  to  undertake  the  commission 
entrusted  to  him.  The  principal  objection  on  the  part  of 
the  settlers  was  the  season  of  the  year.  During  the  winter 
it  was  hard  to  obtain  provisions  and  they  thought  that  they 
would  suffer  more  from  chmatic  hardships  than  from  the 
assaults  of  the  savages.  Besides,  some  of  the  Indians  had 
become  aware  of  the  design  and  were  ready  to  meet  the 
colonists  in  an  engagement.  Stone  decided  to  abandon  the 
scheme  for  the  time  being  and,  on  December  18,  1652, 
directed  those  who  had  assembled  to  return  to  their  homes. ^^ 

According  to  Neill,  Cornwaleys  visited  England  in  1654. 
He  stated  that  while  there,  probably  in  1657,  he  married  a 
young  maiden,  Penelope,  daughter  of  John  Wiseman  of 
Middle  Temple,  and  Tyrrels,  in  County  Essex.  She  was 
then  twenty-one  years  of  age.  We  are  of  the  opinion  that 
Neill  is  mistaken  with  regard  to  the  marriage  of  Cornwaleys 
as  shown  in  the  first  chapter  of  this  biography. 

Matters  about  this  time  looked  ominous  for  the  Maryland 
province.  Ingle  was  besieging  ParUament  with  petitions, 
complaints  and  charges.  Claiborne  again  was  active  and 
even  boasted  that  the  Maryland  Charter  would  be  annulled 
and  he  would  have  Kent  Island,  Indian  disturbances  were 

1*  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  p.  195. 
19  lUd.,  pp.  195-6. 


FINAL   SERVICES   TO   THE    COLONY  127 

threatening,  while  the  enemies  of  Maryland  in  Virginia  were 
full  of  hope.  These  troubles  were  due  to  the  disturbed  con- 
dition of  affairs  in  the  mother  country.  The  charge  that 
Maryland  was  groaning  under  Popish  tyranny  was  again 
brought  forward.  To  answer  this  last  charge,  the  Maryland 
Governor  as  well  as  many  prominent  Protestants  in  the 
Legislature  and  other  citizens,  all  Protestant,  drew  up  a 
declaration  that  they  were  in  no  wise  molested  on  account  of 
their  religion,  in  which  they  were  protected  by  both  the  law 
of  the  land  as  well  as  by  the  strict  injunctions  of  the  Pro- 
prietary.2o 

When  Cromwell  took  upon  himself  the  title  of  Lord  Protec- 
tor of  the  Commonwealth,  Governor  Stone,  early  in  May, 
1654,  proclaimed  him  with  the  firing  of  cannon,  a  proclamation 
of  pardons  and  other  manifestations  of  joy.  ,  Dissatisfaction, 
however,  at  some  of  the  Proprietary's  laws  were  felt  in  some 
quarters.  The  people  of  the  Patuxent  and  Severn  Rivers, 
and  of  Kent,  strongly  objected  to  the  terms  of  an  oath  of 
fidehty  to  Lord  Baltimore,  required  of  those  who  held  lands. 
Some,  acting  under  orders  from  the  Proprietor,  insisted  that 
they  take  the  oath  or  forfeit  their  lands.  Furthermore,  the 
Governor  refused  to  issue  writs  in  any  other  name  than  that 
of  Lord  Baltimore.  Petitions  were  sent  to  Bennett  and 
Claiborne,  two  leaders  in  a  movement  to  have  Lord  Baltimore 
removed  from  jurisdiction  of  his  Province,  and  to  have  the 
old  Charter  of  Virginia  renewed.  Finding  Stone  determined 
in  his  course,  these  two  men  came  into  Maryland  in  July 
1654,  and  compelled  him  to  resign.  They  then  placed  the 
Government  in  the  hands  of  ten  commissioners,  at  the  head 
of  whom  was  Captain  Fuller.  After  this  they  returned  to 
Virginia.  Bennett  went  to  England  to  assist  in  furthering 
the  Virginia  cause  before  the  Lord  Protector.^^ 

Thus  matters  stood  until  March,  1655,  when  a  cutting 
reprimand  from  the  Proprietary  aroused  Stone.  He  resumed 
his  title  and  official  functions,  as  Governor,  and  gathered  an 
armed  force  to  proceed  against  the  malcontents.     A  fight 


^^  Browne,  George  and  Ceciliits  Calvert,  pp.  140-1. 
'*  Streeter,  op.  cit.,  pp.  198-9. 


128  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

ensued  in  which  Stone  was  utterly  defeated,  many  of  his  men 
slain,  and  several  afterwards  executed  by  the  victors. 

The  Province  after  this  remained  for  some  time  under 
the  control  of  Fuller  and  his  party,  though  occasionally  dis- 
turbed by  Captain  Josias  Fendall,  in  behalf  of  the  Pro- 
prietary. Fendall  on  July  10,  1656,  was  appointed  Governor 
with  Philip  Calvert,  brother  of  Cecihus  Calvert,  who  was 
sent  over,  as  Secretary.  Thus  the  Province  was  under  a 
divided  rule,  some  recognizing  Fuller  and  others,  Fendall.^^ 

In  June,  1657,  Fendall  sailed  for  England,  leaving  the 
control  of  affairs  at  St.  Mary's  in  the  hands  of  Dr.  Luke 
Barber.  Whilst  there.  Lord  Baltimore  and  the  agents  of 
Virginia  in  England  discussed  a  compromise.  As  a  result  of 
this  meeting,  Calvert  promised  the  party  of  opposition  in  the 
colony  that,  in  case  they  recognized  his  officers  and  laid 
aside  all  claims  to  authority,  and  promised  to  surrender  the 
records  and  the  great  seal,  and  forget  past  controversies,  he 
would  modify  the  oath  of  fidelity  for  those  wishing  to  take 
up  lands  and  would  never  consent  to  a  repeal  of  the  Act  of 
Toleration.^^ 

Upon  Fendall' s  return,  he  called  a  meeting  of  the  Counsel 
of  the  Province  at  St.  Leonard's,  on  March  18,  1657,  at  which 
Captain  Cornwaleys,  who  had  returned  to  Maryland  in  the 
meantime,  was  present  as  Assistant  to  Governor  Fendall 
and  Secretary  Calvert.  At  this  meeting  Fendall  made  known 
the  terms  of  the  agreement  with  the  Proprietary  that  resulted 
from  the  meeting  in  England.^^  Among  the  instructions 
brought  back  by  Fendall  was  one  in  which  he  was  ordered  in 
the  performance  of  his  duties  as  Governor,  always  to  proceed 
with  the  advice  of  his  Secretary,  Philip  Calvert.  In  case 
the  Secretary  was  absent  from  Maryland;  or  in  case  he  fell 
ill,  or  was  otherwise  prevented  from  acting,  then  the  Governor 
should  act  with  the  advice  and  approbation  of  Captain 
Thomas  Cornwaleys.  Furthermore,  in  case  of  attestations 
of  grants,  the  Captain  and  two  others  of  the  Council  should 

22  Ibid.,  pp.  199-200. 

23 /Wd.,  pp.  200-1. 

24  III— Archives,  p.  334. 


FINAL  SERVICES   TO   THE   COLONY  129 

sign  them.  The  effect  of  this  order  was  to  make  Cornwaleys, 
in  the  absence  of  Calvert,  Secretary  of  the  Province.^^  As  a 
result  of  the  meeting  of  March  18th,  peace  was  again 
restored.  Fuller  recognized  the  authority  of  Fendall  as 
Baltimore's  only  true  and  authorized  representative,  on  the 
last  day  of  the  year  1657.  Thus  Captain  Cornwaleys,  after 
many  years  of  varied  experience  in  the  toils,  hardships  and 
vicissitudes  of  colonial  life,  had  the  satisfaction  of  crowning 
his  active  and  useful  labors,  by  a  participation  in  the  nego- 
tiations that  brought  about  this  happy  result,  and  of  receiving 
from  Lord  Baltimore  a  recognition  of  his  claims  to  his 
gratitude  and  respect,  in  his  appointment,  in  case  of  neces- 
sity, to  discharge  the  offices  of  the  second  official  in  the 
Province.^^ 

Few  memoranda  remain  on  the  records  of  the  Province 
from  now  on  regarding  Captain  Cornwaleys.  In  fact,  with 
the  last  mentioned  episode,  ends  the  story  of  his  personal 
connection  with  the  colony.  Streeter  says  of  him:  ^^ After 
twenty-five  years  of  persevering  labor,  which  had  been 
rewarded  by  the  accumulation  of  a  handsome  estate,  of 
honesty  and  promptitude  in  his  private  dealings,  and  firm- 
ness and  courage  in  his  public  services,  which  had  won  for 
him  the  favor  and  respect  of  the  people,  he  prepared,  with 
the  general  regret  of  the  colonists  to  return  to  England.'' 
There,  in  the  land  of  his  birth,  he  was  to  take  up  his  residence 
and  to  spend  his  declining  years.^^  Leaving  his  ample 
estate  under  the  control  of  Richard  Hotchkeys,  empowered 
to  act  as  his  sole  attorney  for  its  management,  the  Captain, 
with  his  wife,  sailed  for  England,  on  June  2,  1659.^^ 

A  few  entries  on  the  colonial  records  tell  us  that  the  man- 
agement of  his  estates  was  not  unattended  by  inconveniences. 
In  fact,  in  one  case  at  least,  he  had  sufficient  reason  to  com- 
plain of  the  ingratitude  of  one  whom  he  had  befriended.  At 
a  meeting  of  the  Council  held  at  Resurrection  Manor,  on 


2*  Ibid.,  p.  338. 

"  Streeter,  op.  dt.,  pp.  202-3. 

"  Ibid.,  p.  203. 

"  III— Archives,  p.  381. 


130  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

December  12,  1659,  John  Abington  appeared  as  a  petitioner 
on  behalf  of  the  Captain.  This  man  became  Cornwaleys^ 
attorney  on  the  death  of  Hotchkeys  by  designation  of  Corn- 
waleys.  He  had  been  appointed  as  agent  to  receive  pay- 
ments of  tobacco  for  him.  When  his  debtors  refused  to  pay 
him,  he  asked  for  authority  from  the  officials  of  the  Province 
to  confirm  the  appointment  made  by  the  Captain.  The 
Council  at  once  acceded  to  his  request.^^ 

A  few  months  before  leaving  Maryland,  Captain  Corn- 
waleys  purchased  a  plantation  belonging  to  John  Nicholls, 
whom  he  had  frequently  befriended.  This  man  had  become 
involved  in  debt.  At  the  same  time,  at  Nicholls'  earnest 
solicitation  and  as  an  act  of  kindness,  he  consented,  though 
he  had  no  need  for  her  services,  to  take  as  a  servant,  Nicholls' 
daughter,  because  he  was  so  poor  that  he  could  not  support 
his  family.  Nicholls  later  complained  that  his  daughter  had 
entered  the  service  of  the  Captain  at  the  latter' s  earnest 
entreaty,  that  she  had  been  hired  to  wait  upon  his  wife  and 
to  be  treated  Uke  his  own  child.  Instead,  he  alleged,  when 
Cornwaleys  departed  with  his  wife,  the  girl  was  left  behind, 
and  treated  as  a  slave.  On  February  11,  1662,  Nicholls 
laid  these  complaints  before  the  Council  of  the  Province. 
As  no  witness  was  called  on  the  Captain's  behalf,  it  was 
decided  that  Nicholls'  charges  were  true  and  it  was  ordered 
that  the  girl  be  restored.^^ 

When  Cornwaleys  received  information  of  these  proceed- 
ings, he  was  too  tenacious  of  his  rights,  and  too  jealous  for 
the  honor  of  his  character  to  let  this  matter  pass  unnoticed. 
At  the  session  of  the  Assembly  which  convened  at  St.  Mary's, 
in  September,  1663,  under  the  Presidency  of  Charles  Calvert, 
the  eldest  son  of  the  Proprietor,  William  Calvert  and  Thomas 
Notley  presented  a  petition  on  behalf  of  the  Captain  (Sep- 
tember 18th).  In  it  Cornwaleys  set  forth  the  true  state 
of  affairs.  He  told  the  Assembly  just  how  Nicholls'  daughter 
had  come  into  his  service  and  expressed  his  dissatisfaction 
at  the  action  of  the  law  in  giving  a  verdict  against  him  in 

30  Streeter,  op.  cit,  p.  206. 


FINAL  SERVICES   TO   THE   COLONY  131 

Nicholls'  favor.^^  After  the  petition  was  read,  it  was  ordered 
to  be  indorsed  with  the  words  ^^Let  justice  be  done"  and 
sent  to  the  Governor  for  his  signature.^^  When  the  hearing 
of  the  case  was  to  take  place,  NichoUs  did  not  appear.  It  was 
then  ordered  that  the  whole  case  be  brought  up  again  before 
the  Provincial  Court  on  December  8th,  1663.  Whether  the 
case  came  up  at  that  time,  or  how  it  was  decided,  the  re- 
maining records  do  not  inform  us.  However,  if  the  trans- 
action was  fairly  investigated,  the  verdict  was  such  that  the 
well-earned  reputation  of  the  Captain  for  fairness  and  honor 
was  completely  vindicated. 

Further,  trace  of  Cornwaleys^  career,  as  far  as  we  have 
been  able  to  ascertain,  is  not  recorded.  Neill  states  that  he 
died  in  1676  at  the  age  of  seventy-two.  Even  this  is  un- 
certain since  it  hinges  on  the  question  as  to  whether  the 
Thomas  Cornwaleys  of  the  genealogical  tree  furnished  by  the 
work.  The  Private  Correspondence  of  Jane  Lady  Cornwallis  is 
the  same  individual  as  Captain  Thomas  Cornwaleys,  Com- 
missioner and  Counsellor  of  Maryland.^^ 

Two  records,  one  of  St.  Mary's  County,  the  other  of 
Baltimore  County,  tell  us  of  one  WiUiam  Cornwaleys.  The 
first  is  a  will  dated  April  24,  1678;  the  second  a  record  of  a 
surveyor  for  laying  out  a  tract  for  WilUam  CornwaUis,  dated 
November  29,  1679.^*  Whether  he  was  a  son  of  the  Captain 
cannot  be  definitely  settled.  Streeter  thinks  that  this  is  not 
improbable.^^  The  same  author  writes:  ^^So  disappear  the 
generations,  and  so  are  dispersed  the  worldly  goods  of  those 
who,  in  their  day,  have  done  their  fellows  good  service.  But 
their  good  deeds  survive  them.  The  remembrance  of  their 
virtues  will  not  die  out.  In  the  present  case,  'stet  nominis 
umbra  J  As  the  men  of  the  past  had  reason  to  respect  the 
man  himself,  so  those  of  the  present,  on  a  recapitulation  of 
the  deeds  of  his  active  and  useful  life  .  .  .  will  pay  a  merited 
tribute  of  honor  to  the  name  of  cornwaleys.''  ^^ 

'1  / — Archives,  p.  463. 

82  Ibid.,  p.  466. 

«  Neill,  op.  ci<.,  p.  81. 

^  Streeter,  op.  dt.,  p.  211;  Richardson,  op.  ciL,  p.  333. 

''Streeter,  op.  cit.,  p.  211. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
Conclusion 

The  planting  of  a  colony,  amid  the  dangers  and  privations 
of  a  wilderness,  from  the  most  ancient  times,  assumed  a 
high  rank  among  the  heroic  works  of  man.  To  the  credit 
due  to  the  Maryland  colonists  as  founders  of  a  great  State, 
undying  honor  belongs  to  them  as  the  founders  of  religious 
liberty  in  America.  Among  the  little  band  that  began  the 
provincial  history  of  Maryland  on  the  feast  of  the  Annuncia- 
tion, March  25,  1634,  Thomas  Cornwaleys  stands  out  as  one 
of  the  noblest. 

His  career  has  been  described  in  these  pages.  Though  his 
ancestry  cannot  be  ascertained  with  certainty,  yet  Captain 
Thomas  Cornwaleys  needed  not  the  factitious  blazonry  of  a 
noble  hneage  to  support  his  fame.  Whether  we  consider 
him  as  a  Commissioner  or  Councillor,  whether  we  study  his 
acts  in  the  colonial  army  as  its  commander,  in  the  Assembly 
as  legislator,  or  in  the  Provincial  Court  as  judge,  we  are 
struck  with  the  achievements  of  this  man. 

As  Commissioner  and  later  as  Councillor,  he  was  the  trusted 
friend  of  the  Proprietary  and  the  able  adviser  of  the  Governor. 
How  much  Lord  Baltimore  rehed  upon  him  in  this  capacity 
may  be  gathered  from  the  occasion  when  he  was  appointed 
to  act  as  Deputy  Governor,  and  as  adviser  to  Governors 
Calvert  and  Fendall.  His  relations  with  CeciUus  Calvert 
seem  to  have  always  been  of  a  friendly  nature.  In  his  letter 
to  him  in  1638,  he  speaks  frankly  and  fearlessly — the  manner 
of  procedure  between  friends.  His  connections  with  Leonard 
Calvert,  too,  were  generally  of  an  amicable  nature,  though 
at  times  he  had  his  differences  with  this  official. 

As  Captain  General  of  the  army  of  the  colony,  we  find  Corn- 
waleys an  undaunted  leader.  In  the  quarrel  with  Claiborne, 
he  successfully  vindicated  the  rights  of  the  Proprietary.  In 
the  suppression  of  Indian  hostilities,  he  must  be  regarded  as 
the  most  courageous  man  in  the  whole  colony.     In  fact, 

132 


CONCLUSION  133 

when  the  cause  of  the  colonists'  safety  and  protection  seemed 
to  be  utterly  lost  due  to  hesitancy  and  indifference  on  the 
part  of  the  colonists  themselves,  then  it  is  that  we  find  the 
Captain  levying  an  army  of  volunteers  to  make  a  desperate 
attempt  to  end  once  and  for  all  the  Indian  hostilities  that 
were  the  bane  of  the  settlers  and  the  friendly  tribes  alike. 

In  the  Assembly,  Cornwaleys'  one  object  was  to  secure 
lasting  benefits  of  just  and  wise  legislation  for  the  good  of 
the  colony.  He  considered  nothing  so  important  as  an 
assiduous  devotion  on  the  part  of  the  members  of  the 
Assembly  to  carry  on  the  business  for  which  they  met.  He 
was  a  popular  leader,  championing  the  rights  of  the  colonists 
on  all  occasions.  He  ever  worked  for  the  curtailing  of  official 
privilege.  Above  all,  he  strove  for  the  securing  of  the  right 
of  the  people  to  legislate  for  themselves.  This  they  did 
achieve. 

His  career  in  the  Provincial  Court  is  marked  with  justice 
in  the  vindication  of  the  laws  of  the  Province.  Though 
he  was  ever  on  the  side  of  justice,  he  was  not  so  stern  a  judge 
as  not  to  feel  commiseration  for  the  guilty.  Thus  we  find 
him  in  his  letter  referred  to  so  frequently  in  these  pages, 
writing  to  Lord  Baltimore  telling  him  of  his  sorrow  for  the 
fate  of  Thomas  Smith,  who  was  condemned  to  death  for  his 
part  in  the  Kent  uprising.  He  also  tells  the  Proprietor  of 
his  sympathy  for  the  wife  of  the  doomed  man.  His  impar- 
tiality was  evidenced  on  all  occasions,  notably  when  he  was 
called  upon  to  sit  in  judgment  on  the  acts  of  some  few  who 
disturbed  the  peaceful  relations  existing  between  the  Protes- 
tants and  the  Catholics. 

Cornwaleys'  religion  meant  much  to  him.  It  was  to 
secure  freedom  of  worship  that  he  left  his  native  land.  His 
zeal  for  the  prosperity  of  the  Church  in  Maryland  has  been 
described  in  the  chapter  on  the  relations  between  himself 
and  the  missionaries.  In  the  annual  letter  of  the  Jesuits  of 
1638,  cited  in  the  chapter  on  Hawley  and  Cornwaleys,  men- 
tion was  made  of  the  fact  that  during  that  year  many  of 
the  prominent  men  in  the  colony  performed  the  spiritual 


134  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

exercises  conducted  by  the  Fathers.     In  all  probabiUty, 
Cornwaleys  was  one  of  their  number. 

We  might  go  on  at  length  to  discuss  the  merits  of  Thomas 
Cornwaleys  as  exhibited  during  his  career  in  Maryland. 
Enough  has  been  said  in  this  work  to  bring  into  bold  relief 
the  sterling  character  of  the  Captain.  Though  no  monu- 
ment has  been  erected  to  remind  us  of  his  services  to  Mary- 
land, his  memory  should  not  be  allowed  to  pass. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

Critical  Essay  on  Authorities 
general  works 

Since  no  account  of  any  length  has  yet  appeared  on 
Thomas  Cornwaleys,  a  variety  of  sources  was  consulted  in  the 
preparation  of  this  dissertation  ranging  from  works  deahng 
with  the  history  of  America,  the  United  States  and  England, 
to  histories  of  various  episodes  and  personages.  The  work 
of  Justin  Winsor,  History  of  America,  Vol.  Ill,  Boston  and 
New  York,  1884,  contains  a  splendid  account  on  the  History 
of  Maryland.  To  the  study  of  the  writer  on  Maryland  in 
this  critical  work,  Mr.  Winsor  has  added  the  fruit  of  his  own 
researches.  In  the  work  entitled  The  American  NatioUj 
edited  by  Albert  Bushnell  Hart,  LL.  D.,  the  volume  (Vol.  IV) 
by  Lyon  Gardiner  Tyler,  LL.  D.,  England  in  Americay  New 
York  and  London,  1904,  a  succinct  account  of  Maryland  with 
a  very  good  bibliography  is  to  be  found.  Henry  William 
Elson's  History  of  the  United  States  of  America  (Vol.  I),  New 
York,  1905,  also  embraces  a  brief  account  of  the  period  with 
which  we  dealt.  EngUsh  histories  employed  were:  John 
Lingard,  D.  D.,  The  History  of  England  (Vols.  VII  and  VIII), 
London,  1855;  and  Dodd-Tierney,  Church  History  of  Eng- 
land, Vols.  IV  and  V,  London,  1841  and  1843.  The  latter 
is  a  highly  annotated  work. 

GENERAL  WORKS   ON   MARYLAND 

Standard  authorities  for  the  history  of  Maryland  are  John 
V.  L.  McMahon,  An  Historical  View  of  the  Government  of 
Maryland,  Baltimore,  1831,  of  which  only  the  first  volume 
appeared;  John  Leeds  Bozman,  The  History  of  Maryland  (2 
Vols,  Baltimore,  1837,  covering  the  period  of  1634  to  1658) ; 
J.  Thomas  Scharf,  History  of  Maryland  (3  Vols.,  Baltimore, 
1879) ;  James  McSherry,  A  History  of  Maryland,  Baltimore, 
1852.  Of  these  McMahon's  work  was  found  of  the  greatest 
value  in  considering  the  Maryland  Charter.  Bozman  has 
written  a  highly  documented  work  that  is  very  thorough. 

135 


136  THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

William  T.  Russell,  now  Bishop  of  Charleston,  S.  C,  in 
Maryland  the  Land  of  Sanctuary,  Baltimore,  1907,  has  dealt 
principally  with  the  story  of  religious  toleration  in  Maryland 
history.  His  book  is  enriched  with  copious  references. 
Newton  D.  Mereness  has  contributed  a  valuable  work  on 
the  government  of  Maryland  in  his  work,  Maryland  as  a 
Proprietary  Province,  New  York,  1901.  Other  works  dealing 
with  this  subject  are  Herbert  L.  Osgood's  article  in  the 
American  Historical  Review  (Vol.  II,  1896-97),  The  Pro- 
prietary Province  as  a  Form  of  Colonial  Government ; 
WilUam  Hand  Browne,  Maryland  the  History  of  a  Palatinate , 
Boston,  1888. 

SPECIAL  WORKS   ON   THOMAS   CORNWALEYS 

Sebastian  F.  Streeter,  in  his  Papers  relating  to  the  Early 
History  of  Maryland,  Baltimore,  1876,  gives  a  very  good 
account  of  Thomas  Cornwaleys.  The  chapter  contains  few 
references.  However,  the  author  has  been  found  most 
rehable.  A  distinct  feature  of  the  Streeter  Papers  is  the  brief 
biographical  notice  he  gives  of  the  members  who  composed 
the  first  Assembly  of  Maryland  of  which  a  record  has  come 
down  to  us.  Rev.  Edward  D.  Neill,  in  a  work  entitled.  The 
Founders  of  Maryland,  Albany,  1876,  devotes  a  chapter  to 
Thomas  Cornwaleys.  He  also  wrote  an  article  under  the 
caption  Thomas  Cornwaleys  and  Early  Maryland  Colonists, 
Boston,  1889  (reprinted  from  the  N.  E,  Historical  and 
Genealogical  Register  for  April,  1889).  In  both  these  pro- 
ductions, Neill  contrary  to  all  authorities  asserts  that  Corn- 
waleys was  a  Protestant.  The  author  is  not  free  from  bias 
and  has  not  been  used  in  this  dissertation  except  in  a  few 
instances  and  then  only  with  reservation  and  when  he  had 
other  authorities  to  support  his  statements. 

DOCUMENTARY   MATERIAL   FOR   THIS   BIOGRAPHY 

The  printed  Archives  of  Maryland,  published  by  the  Mary- 
land Historical  Society,  have  furnished  the  best  source 
material  in  the  preparation  of  this  dissertation.  Five 
volumes  of  these  colonial  records  contain  material  dealing 


CRITICAL  ESSAY   ON    AUTHORITIES  137 

with  Thomas  Cornwaleys.  They  are  the  following:  Vol.  I, 
Proceedings  of  the  Assembly y  Jan.  1637-8 — Sept.  1664,  Balti- 
more, 1883;  Vol.  Ill,  Proceedings  of  the  Council,  1636-1667, 
Baltimore,  1885;  Vol.  IV,  Provincial  Court,  1637-1650, 
Baltimore,  1887;  Vol.  V,  Proceedings  of  the  Council,  1667- 
1687/8,  Baltimore,  1887;  and  Vol.  X,  Provincial  Court, 
1649/50-1657,  Baltimore,  1891.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that 
these  volumes  are  not  enriched  with  more  copious  indices. 

Clayton  C.  Hall,  Narratives  of  Early  Maryland,  1633-1684, 
in  J.  F.  Jameson's  Original  Narratives  of  Early  American 
History,  New  York,  1910. 

Two  numbers  of  The  Calvert  Papers  have  been  most 
serviceable.  Number  1,  Baltimore,  1889,  contains  letters  of 
such  persons  as  Thomas  Cornwaleys,  Cecilius  Calvert, 
Governor  Calvert,  Father  Copley  and  others;  Number  3, 
Baltimore,  1889,  gives  A  Brief  Relation  of  the  Voyage  unto 
Maryland. 

A  manuscript  of  the  Public  Record  Office  dealing  with  an 
episode  in  the  Ingle  affair,  labeled  Admiralty  High  Court, 
Libel  Bundle,  108,  No.  21,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Library  of 
Congress  Transcripts. 

Other  sources  that  have  been  valuable  aids  in  studying  the 
Ingle-Cornwaleys  case  are  Lords^  Journal,  Vol.  VIII,  1645- 
1646;  Manuscripts  of  the  House  of  Lords,  calendared  in 
Historical  Manuscripts  Conmiission,  Sixth  Report,  London, 
1877. 

Besides  the  Relation  referred  to  above,  there  are  two  other 
accounts  dealing  with  the  coming  of  the  Maryland  colonists, 
the  Relatio  Itineris  in  Marylandiam,  by  Father  Andrew 
White,  S.  J.,  pubhshed  with  an  English  translation  and  edited 
by  Rev.  E.  A.  Dalrymple,  S.  T.  D.,  in  Baltimore,  1874;  and 
A  Relation  of  Maryland,  reprinted  from  the  London  edition  of 
1635,  and  edited  with  notes  and  an  appendix  by  Francis  L. 
Hawks,  New  York,  1865. 

HISTORIES  OF  THE  SOCIETY  OF  JESUS 

In  several  histories  dealing  with  the  Jesuit  Order,  material 
on  Cornwaleys  was  found  available.     Of  these,  the  best  is 


138  THOMAS   CORN  WALE  YS 

that  of  Thomas  Hughes,  S.  J.,  History  of  the  Society  of  Jesus 
in  North  America  Colonial  and  Federal  (2  volumes  of  Text 
and  2  volumes  of  Documents),  New  York,  1907-1917.  Other 
works  under  this  category  are:  Henry  Foley,  S.  J.,  Records 
of  the  English  Province  of  the  Society  of  Jesus  (Vol.  Ill), 
London,  1878,  and  Rev.  WilUam  P.  Treacy,  Old  Catholic 
Maryland  and  Its  Early  Jesuit  Missionaries,  Swedesboro, 
N.  J.,  1889. 

BIOGRAPHIES 

In  studying  the  extant  genealogies  of  Thomas  Cornwaleys, 
the  following  works  were  consulted:  Alexander  Brown,  The 
Genesis  of  the  United  States,  Boston  and  New  York,  1890; 
The  Private  Correspondence  of  Jane  Lady  Cornwallis,  London, 
1842;  The  Cyclopedia  of  American  Biography,  New  York, 
1915;  and  Dictionary  of  National  Biography  (Vol.  XII), 
edited  by  Leslie  Stephen,  New  York,  1887.  As  noted  in  the 
first  chapter  of  this  dissertation,  the  genealogical  notices  of 
Thomas  Cornwaleys  do  not  appear  to  us  as  conclusive. 

GENERAL  WORKS  CONSULTED 

•George  Alsop,  A  Character  of  the  Province  of  Maryland, 
reprinted  from  the  original  edition  of  1666,  with  introduction 
and  notes  by  Newton  D.  Mereness,  Cleveland,  1902. — Wil- 
liam   Hand    Browne,    George    and    Cecilius    Calvert   Lords 
Baltimore,  New  York,  1890. — Catholic  Record  Society,  Vol. 
VIII,  Miscellanea,  London,  1913.— R.  H.  Clarke,  LL.  D., 
Bancrofts  History  of  the  United  States,  in  The  Catholic  World 
(Vols.  38  and  39). — Sanford  Cobb,  The  Rise  of  Religious 
Liberty    in    America,    New    York,    1902. — George    Lynn- 
Lachlan  Davis,  The  Day-Star  of  American  Freedom  or  The 
Birth  and  Early  Growth  of  Toleration  in   the   Province   of 
Maryland,  New  York,  1855. — M.  F.  Howley,  Ecclesiastical 
History  of  Newfoundland,   Boston,    1887. — Edward   Ingle, 
Captain  Richard  Ingle,  the  Maryland  Pirate  and  Rebel,  Balti- 
more, 1884. — John  Johnson,  Old  Maryland  Manors,  Balti- 
more, 1883. — ^John  Kilty,  The  Land-Holder^s  Assistant  and 
Land-Office  Guide,  Baltimore,  1808. — John  H.  Latane,  The 


CRITICAL   ESSAY   ON   AUTHORITIES  139 

Early   Relations    between   Maryland   and    Virginia    (Johns 
Hopkins  University  Studies),  Baltimore,  March  and  April, 
1895. — R.    R.    Madden,    The   History   of  the   Penal   Laws 
enacted  against  Roman  Catholics^  London,  1847. — Very  Rev. 
V.  F.  O'Daniel,  O.  P.,  S.  T.  M.,  Cuthhert  Fenwick—Pioneer 
Catholic   and   Legislator    of    Maryland,    in    The    Catholic 
Historical   Review,   Vol.    V;   and    The   Right  Rev.   Edward 
Dominic   Fenwick,    0.    P.,    Washington,    D.    C,    1920. — 
Beauchamp  Plantagenet,  A  Description  of  the  Province  of 
New  Albion  (printed  in  1648),  American  Colonial  Tracts,  Vol. 
II,  No.  6,  Rochester,  1898.— Thomas  Wentworth  Strafford, 
Letters  and  Dispatches,  edited  by  Sir  George  Radcliffe  (2 
Vols.),   London,    1739. — Hester  Dorsey  Richardson,   Side- 
Lights  on  Maryland  History,  Baltimore,   1913. — John  Gil- 
mary  Shea,  History  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  United  States 
(Vol.  I),  New  York,  1886;  and  Maryland  and  the  Contro- 
versies as  to  her  Early  History,  in  American  Catholic  Quarterly 
Review  (Vol.  X),  Philadelphia,  1885. — Bernard  C.  Steiner, 
Ph.  D.,  Beginnings  of  Maryland  1631-1639,  Baltimore,  1903; 
and  Maryland  during  English  Civil  Wars,  Baltimore,  1903. 


VITA 


George  Boniface  Stratemeier  was  born  in  Pittsburgh,  Pa., 
April  21,  1895.  He  received  his  elementary  education  in  St. 
Joseph^ s  School,  Pittsburgh,  and  his  classical  course  in  St. 
Vincent  College,  Beatty,  Pa.  He  entered  the  novitiate  of 
the  Order  of  Preachers  at  St.  Joseph's  Convent,  Somerset, 
Ohio,  in  1914,  and  in  the  following  year  the  Dominican  House 
of  Studies,  Washington,  D.  C.  Here  were  completed  his 
studies  in  Philosophy  and  Theology.  He  was  ordained  to 
the  priesthood  on  June  12,  1921.  From  1915  until  1922,  he 
followed  courses  at  the  Catholic  University  in  American 
Church  History,  the  Enghsh  Counter-Reformation  and 
English  Institutions,  under  Rev.  Peter  Guilday,  Ph.  D.;  in 
American  Church  History,  under  Rev.  Patrick  W.  Browne, 
S.  T.  D.;  in  Medieval  Institutions,  under  Rev.  Paschal 
Robinson,  O.  F.  M.,  S.  T.  D. ;  in  Medieval  German  Legends 
and  Indo-Germanic  Philology,  under  Paul  Gleis,  Ph.  D.; 
and  in  Homiletics,  under  Rt.  Rev.  Hugh  T.  Henry,  Litt.  D., 
LL.  D. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


90ct'6lLl/ 


t\  .-CT;     ,,  'J 


^ 


6^ 


>j^^ 


OCT  91961 


'0^ 


1^ 


.«»?^ 


17Nov'6i:' 


kit- 


UU  »-'-> 


DEC141261 


Idh    5198973 


MAV3l'69'3PW 


1.-OAM   Q^^^ 


Sgf    41969^'*. 


■^EPiiRarD 


LD  21A-50m-8,'61 
(Cl795sl0)476B 


General  Library 

Uaiversity  of  California 

Berkeley 


_  4846:^3 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


